AB0952 Characterization of patients with psoriatic arthritis in dermatologic and rheumatologic care: an analysis of two disease registries

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting the musculoskeletal system, skin and nails. Therapeutic management in Germany is usually provided by a dermatologist or rheumatologist.

Objectives

The aim is to characterize the socioeconomic and clinical patient profiles in dermatologic and rheumatologic settings.

Methods

Baseline data of patients with PsA from [1] the dermatological German Psoriasis Registry PsoBest (PB) and [2] the rheumatological German disease register RABBIT-SpA (RS) [2] were analyzed. For this purpose, comparable anamnestic and clinical variables collected in the period 10/2017 to 12/2020 were identified and descriptively analyzed. The analysis was carried out in each of the data-holding registers.

Results

1066 RS patients and 704 PB patients were included in the analysis (Table 1). The proportion of women was higher in the rheumatology setting (RS) (60% vs. 49%). Disease duration of psoriasis was longer in the dermatology setting (PB). Cutaneous severity was higher in PB, including affected body surface area and nail psoriasis. However, more patients in RS had tender joints and swollen joints. The physician-reported global disease activity was higher in RS. The mean DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) was higher in PB and the mean HAQ (Health Assessment Questionnaire) was higher in RS. Patient reported global disease activity and pain were lower in PB.

Table 1.

Baseline data of patients with PsA from the registers PsoBest and RABBIT-SpA included 10/2017 to 12/2020.

RABBIT-SpA(Rheumatology setting)PsoBest(Dermatology setting)N1066704Age, mean (SD)51.9 (12.2)51.7 (13.2)Female, n (%)637 (60)346 (49)Disease duration skin, mean (SD)14.3 (13.9)21.6 (16.0)Body surface area, mean (SD)8.5 (15.0)20.8 (19.8)Nail psoriasis, n (%)434 (41)407 (58)Tender joints, n (%)905 (85)498 (71)Swollen joints, n (%)708 (67)387 (55)Physician reported disease activity, mean (SD)5.2 (1.9)4.6 (2.7)DLQI, mean (SD)5.6 (6.2)12.2 (7.6)HAQ, mean (SD)0.9 (0.7)0.7 (0.6)Patient reported disease activity, mean (SD)5.7 (2.4)4.9 (2.9)Patient reported pain, mean (SD)5.5 (2.4)5.2 (2.8)bDMARD, n (%)751 (71)514 (73)TNF, n (%)346 (46)117 (23)IL17, n (%)351 (47)246 (48)IL23, n (%)54 (7)151 (29)tsDMARD, n (%)109 (10)47 (7)csDMARD, n (%)195 (18)142 (20)

Most of the patients received biologics at inclusion (RS: 71% and PB: 73%). In the dermatology setting IL23 inhibitors were used more frequently, whereas TNF inhibitors were used more frequently in the rheumatology setting.

Conclusion

The clinical specialization of the treating physician was associated with a different treatment and clinical status of patients with PsA. Our analysis showed that patients in the rheumatology setting more frequently had joint affections and lower functional status, whereas skin severity was worse in the dermatology setting, indicating selection effects of health care access. We hypothesize out that these differences may be biased due to different diagnostic and therapeutic routines in the specialized health care settings. Psoriatic arthritis should be treated in a multidisciplinary approach to take into account all facets of this complex disease.

References

[1]PMID: 24393314

[2]PMID: 30874933

Disclosure of Interests

Lisa Lindner Grant/research support from: RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris., Matthias Augustin Grant/research support from: The PsoBest registry is/was supported by AbbVie, Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris. These companies do not have influence on the design of the registry, data collection, analyses, the publication decisions or development., Laura Kühl Grant/research support from: The PsoBest registry is/was supported by AbbVie, Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris. These companies do not have influence on the design of the registry, data collection, analyses, the publication decisions or development., Anja Weiß Grant/research support from: RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris., Stephan Jeff Rustenbach Grant/research support from: The PsoBest registry is/was supported by AbbVie, Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris. These companies do not have influence on the design of the registry, data collection, analyses, the publication decisions or development., Frank Behrens: None declared, Martin Feuchtenberger: None declared, Ilka Schwarze: None declared, Ulrich Mrowietz: None declared, Diamant Thaçi: None declared, Kristian Reich Grant/research support from: The PsoBest registry is/was supported by AbbVie, Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris. These companies do not have influence on the design of the registry, data collection, analyses, the publication decisions or development., Anja Strangfeld Grant/research support from: RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris., Anne Regierer Grant/research support from: RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris.

AB0789 What drives the BASDAI in pregnant patients with axial spondyloarthritis? A pooled analysis of four European pregnancy registries

Background

The patient reported Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) includes the six components fatigue, neck, back or hip pain, pain or swelling in other joints, tenderness, morning stiffness severity and duration on a 0-10 scale.

Objectives

To explore the driving factors for the BASDAI in pregnant patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

Methods

Anonymized pooled data of the European Network of Pregnancy Registries in Rheumatology (EuNeP) were used. The four participating registries are located in France, Germany, Norway and Switzerland, and collect data of women with child wish, during and after pregnancy prospectively and nationwide on regular time points. For the analysis, women who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria for axSpA and for whom a pregnancy outcome was reported until 12/2019 or 07/2020, depending on the registry, were selected. Mean BASDAI and its components were analysed descriptively.

Results

A total of 332 pregnancies from 304 women with axSpA were eligible. The Norwegian registry contributed half of the pregnancies (50.3%), followed by Germany (26.2%), France (15.4%) and Switzerland (8.1%). Mean maternal age was 31 years, the average disease duration 5 years.

Mean BASDAI was 3.0 before conception, 3.4, 3.4 and 3.5 in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimester, and 3.4 within 6 months postpartum. The figure shows mean values of the BASDAI and its individual components in the different time periods. Fatigue was higher than the mean score during all phases, and especially elevated in the 1st and 3rd trimester. Furthermore, values for neck, back or hip pain were higher than the mean score, especially from 2nd trimester on. All other components were lower than the mean score.

Data were not reported for all pregnancies and all time periods. Availability was highest in the 2nd and 3rd trimester with reported BASDAI in 60% and 62% of the pregnancies, respectively. Lowest reporting was 24% in the preconception period because only a part of the women was also observed before pregnancy.

Conclusion

The BASDAI is a validated instrument for assessing disease activity in patients with axSpA. Since the calculation of the score also includes factors that can be influenced by pregnancy, it may only be of limited value for measuring disease activity in pregnancy. This analysis shows that mainly fatigue and back pain in particular have an impact on the mean BASDAI. A limitation of this analysis is that data were not available for all measured time points of the individual pregnancies. Therefore, the results should be confirmed by other studies.

Figure 1.

Means of BASDAI components before, during and after pregnancy (the table presents means ± standard deviation).

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a research grant from FOREUM Foundation for Research in Rheumatology.

Disclosure of Interests

Yvette Meissner Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Anna Moltó Consultant of: UCB and BioGen, Grant/research support from: UCB, Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau Grant/research support from: to my institution (UCB), Rebecca Fischer-Betz: None declared, Frauke Förger Speakers bureau: UCB pharma, GSK, Consultant of: UCB pharma, GSK, Roche, Grant/research support from: UCB pharma, GSK, Marianne Wallenius: None declared, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB.

POS1212 SARS-CoV-2 VACCINE SAFETY IN ADOLESCENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES AND ADULTS WITH JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS

Background

There is a lack of data on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination safety in children and young people (CYP) with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Current vaccination guidance is based on data from adults with RMDs or CYP without RMDs.

Objectives

To describe the characteristics and outcomes of adolescents with inflammatory RMDs and adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

We described patient characteristics, flares, and adverse events in adolescent cases under 18 with inflammatory RMDs and adult cases aged 18 or above with JIA submitted to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) COVAX registry.

Results

Thirty-six adolescent cases were reported from 4 countries, the most frequent diagnosis was JIA (42%). Over half (56%) reported early reactogenic-like adverse events (AEs) experienced within 7 days of vaccination. One mild polyarthralgia flare and one serious AE (malaise) were reported. No CYP reported SARS-CoV-2 infection post-vaccination.

In addition to the adolescent cases, eleven countries reported 74 adult JIA cases. Among these, 62% reported early reactogenic-like AEs and two flares were reported (mild polyarthralgia and moderate uveitis). No serious AEs of special interest were reported among adults with JIA. Three 20-30 year old females were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 post-vaccination; all fully recovered.

Conclusion

In this observational registry dataset, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines appeared safe in adolescents with RMDs and adults with JIA, with a low frequency of disease flares, serious AEs, and SARS-CoV-2 re-infection seen in both populations.

Table 1.

Characteristics of adolescents with RMDs and adults with JIA reported to the EULAR COVAX registry

Adolescents with RMDs (N=36)Adults with JIA (N=74)SexFemale21 (58)54 (73)Male15 (42)20 (27)Age (median [IQR])15 [14.5, 17]26 [23, 31]Primary RMD diagnosisNon-systemic JIA10 (28)63 (85)Systemic JIA5 (14)11 (15)Systemic lupus erythematosus5 (14)Spondyloarthritis/psoriatic arthritis5 (14)Vasculitis/other RMD #11 (30)RMD disease activityRemission23 (64)33 (45)Minimal8 (22)21 (28)Moderate2 (6)12 (16)Severe1 (3)1 (1)Not applicable/missing2 (6)7 (10)RMD medicationNone9 (25)3 (4)b-DMARD9 (25)50 (68)cs-DMARD21 (58)25 (34)ts-DMARD5 (14)2 (3)Systemic glucocorticoids5 (14)1 (1)Colchicine7 (10)Other immunosuppressant *COVAX typePfizer/BioNTech33 (92)50 (68)Moderna2 (6)10 (14)AstraZeneca/Oxford1 (3)10 (14)Janssen1 (1)CoronaVac2 (3)UNK1 (1)COVAX doses111 (31)8 (11)22 (24)61 (82)31 (3)5 (7)RMD flareYes1 (3)2 (3)AEYes20 (56)46 (62)Early AEInjection site pain8 (22)16 (22)Redness6 (17)2 (3)Muscle pain1 (3)9 (12)Joint pain4 (11)3 (4)Headache9 (25)10 (14)Fever1 (3)26 (35)Chills2 (6)5 (7)Fatigue1 (3)13 (18)VomitingAE of special interestNon-serious1 (3)1 (1)Serious – important medical event1 (3)

All data are N(%) of the column unless stated otherwise.

# Other RMD includes Sjogren’s syndrome, systemic sclerosis, undifferentiated connective tissue disease, non-monogenic auto-inflammatory syndrome, chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, and other inflammatory arthritis

* Other immunosuppressant includes ciclosporin, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid.

RMD, rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease; JIA, juvenile idiopathic arthritis; EULAR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology; ANCA-associated vasculitis, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis; cs-, conventional synthetic; b-, biological; ts-, targeted synthetic; DMARD, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug; COVAX, Coronavirus vaccine; AE, adverse event.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all healthcare providers who entered data into the registry.

Disclosure of Interests

Saskia Lawson-Tovey: None declared, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Elsa Mateus: None declared, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Loreto Carmona: None declared, Pedro Machado Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, BERND RAFFEINER: None declared, Inita Bulina Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daniel Clemente Speakers bureau: Novartis, GSK, Julija Zepa Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Ana Maria Rodrigues Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Ose, Kimme Hyrich Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, BMS, UCB

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

OP0252 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SEVERE COVID-19 OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHY: RESULTS FROM THE COVID-19 GLOBAL RHEUMATOLOGY ALLIANCE PHYSICIAN-REPORTED REGISTRY

Background

There is a paucity of data in the literature about the outcome of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Objectives

To investigate factors associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IIM.

Methods

Data on demographics, number of comorbidities, region, COVID-19 time period, physician-reported disease activity, anti-rheumatic medication exposure at the clinical onset of COVID-19, and COVID-19 outcomes of IIM patients were obtained from the voluntary COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry of adults with rheumatic disease (from 17 March 2020 to 27 August 2021). An ordinal COVID-19 severity scale was used as primary outcome of interest, with each outcome category being mutually exclusive from the other:a) no hospitalization, b) hospitalization (and no death), or c) death. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. In ordinal logistic regression, the effect size of a categorical predictor can be interpreted as the odds of being one level higher on the ordinal COVID-19 severity scale than the reference category.

Results

Complete hospitalization and death outcome data was available in 348 IIM cases. Mean age was 53 years, and 223 (64.1%) were female. Overall, 167/348 (48.0%) people were not hospitalized, 136/348 (39.1%) were hospitalized (and did not die), and 45/348 (12.9%) died. Older age (OR=1.59 per decade of life, 95%CI 1.32-1.93), male sex (OR=1.63, 95%CI 1.004-2.64; versus female), high disease activity (OR=4.05, 95%CI 1.29-12.76; versus remission), presence of two or more comorbidities (OR=2.39, 95%CI 1.22-4.68; versus none), prednisolone-equivalent dose >7.5 mg/day (OR=2.37, 95%CI 1.27-4.44; versus no glucocorticoid intake), and exposure to rituximab (OR=2.60, 95%CI 1.23-5.47; versus csDMARDs only) were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes (Table 1).

Table 1.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis of factors associated with the ordinal COVID-19 severity outcomes. AZA, azathioprine; CI, confidence interval; combo, combination; CSA, ciclosporin; CYC, cyclophosphamide; DMARD, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug; b/tsDMARD, biologic/targeted synthetic DMARD, csDMARD, conventional synthetic DMARD; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; IVIg, intravenous immunoglobulin; LEF, leflunomide; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; mono, monotherapy; MTX, methotrexate; OR, odds ratio; Ref, reference; RTX, rituximab; SSZ, sulfasalazine; TAC, tacrolimus.

VariableOR (95%CI)P-valueVariableOR (95%CI)P-valueAge (per decade)1.59 (1.32-1.93)<0.001ComorbiditiesMale sex1.63 (1.004-2.64)0.048NoneRefNAPrednisolone-equivalent doseOne1.46 (0.79-2.72)0.228NoneRefNATwo or more2.39 (1.22-4.68)0.011>0 to 7.5mg/day1.10 (0.57-2.11)0.779Physician-reported disease activity>7.5mg/day2.37 (1.27-4.44)0.007RemissionRefNAIVIg0.41 (0.15-1.16)0.093Low/moderate1.23 (0.67-2.28)0.504DMARDsHigh4.05 (1.29-12.76)0.018csDMARD only (mono or combi - HCQ, MTX, LEF, SSZ)RefNARegionNo DMARD1.84 (0.90-3.75)0.094EuropeRefNAb/tsDMARD mono or combi (except RTX)1.60 (0.49-5.26)0.435North America0.89 (0.49-1.61)0.694CSA/CYC/TAC mono or combi (except RTX or b/tsDMARDs)1.55 (0.52-4.58)0.429Other4.25 (2.21-8.16)<0.001AZA mono1.70 (0.69-4.19)0.249Time periodMMF mono1.22 (0.53-2.82)0.634Before 15 June 2020RefNAAZA/MMF combi (except RTX or b/tsDMARDs)0.71 (0.25-2.00)0.51716 June - 30 September 20200.58 (0.26-1.27)0.171RTX mono or combi2.60 (1.23-5.47)0.012After 1 October 20200.58 (0.35-0.95)0.032

Conclusion

These are the first global registry data on the impact of COVID-19 on IIM patients. Older age, male gender, higher comorbidity burden, higher disease activity, higher glucocorticoid intake and rituximab exposure were associated with worse outcomes. These findings will inform risk stratification and management decisions for IIM patients.

References

None

Disclosure of Interests

Su-Ann Yeoh: None declared, Milena Gianfrancesco: None declared, Saskia Lawson-Tovey: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Speakers bureau: AbbVie unrelated to this work, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, BMS, both unrelated to this work, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celltrion, MSD, Janssen, Lilly, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, all unrelated to this work, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, all unrelated to this work, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, all unrelated to this work, Loreto Carmona: None declared, Elsa Mateus Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim Portugal, not related to this work, Martin Schaefer: None declared, Christophe Richez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, all unrelated to this abstract, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, all unrelated to this abstract, Eric Hachulla Speakers bureau: Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Chugai, all unrelated to this work, Consultant of: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi-Genzyme, all unrelated to this work, Grant/research support from: CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi-Genzyme, all unrelated to this work, Marie Holmqvist: None declared, Carlo Alberto Scirè Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, both unrelated to this work, Rebecca Hasseli: None declared, Arundathi Jayatilleke: None declared, Tiffany Hsu: None declared, Kristin D’Silva: None declared, Victor Pimentel-Quiroz: None declared, Monica Vasquez del Mercado: None declared, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Edgard Reis Neto: None declared, Laurindo Rocha Jr: None declared, Ana Carolina de Oliveira e Silva Montandon Speakers bureau: GSK, not related to this work, Paula Jordan: None declared, Emily Sirotich: None declared, Jonathan Hausmann Speakers bureau: Novartis, Biogen, Pfizer, not related to this work, Consultant of: Novartis, Biogen, Pfizer, not related to this work, Jean Liew Grant/research support from: Pfizer research grant, completed in 2021, not related to this work, Lindsay Jacobsohn: None declared, Monique Gore-Massy Speakers bureau: Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, not related to this work, Consultant of: Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, not related to this work, Paul Sufka: None declared, Rebecca Grainger Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Cornerstones, all unrelated to this work, Consultant of: AbbVie, Novartis, both unrelated to this work, Suleman Bhana Shareholder of: Pfizer, Inc, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Horizon, Novartis, and Pfizer, all unrelated to this work, Consultant of: AbbVie, Horizon, Novartis, and Pfizer, all unrelated to this work, Employee of: Pfizer, Inc, Zachary Wallace: None declared, Philip Robinson Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Roche, GSK, Novartis, Lilly, UCB, all unrelated to this work, Paid instructor for: Lilly, unrelated to this work, Consultant of: GSK, Kukdong, Atom Biosciences, UCB, all unrelated to this work, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Pfizer, UCB and Novartis, all unrelated to this work, Jinoos Yazdany Consultant of: Aurinia, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, all unrelated to this work, Grant/research support from: Astra Zeneca, Gilead, BMS Foundation, all unrelated to this work, Pedro Machado Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this work., Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this work.

POS1078 COMPARISON OF PATIENTS WITH AXIAL PsA AND PATIENTS WITH axSpA AND CONCOMITANT PSORIASIS

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting the peripheral and axial musculoskeletal system as well as skin and nails. Diagnostic criteria of axial PsA (axPsA) are not well defined. Treatment strategy is mostly based on evidence generated for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), as only rare clinical trial data for axPsA exist. However, it is still unclear whether axSpA with concomitant psoriasis (axSpA/pso) is the same as axPsA.

Objectives

To compare PsA patients with axial manifestations with axSpA patients with concomitant psoriasis.

Methods

RABBIT-SpA is a prospective longitudinal cohort study including PsA and axSpA patients enrolled at start of a new conventional treatment or b/tsDMARD treatment. Two definitions of axPsA were used:

Clinical definition: documentation of axial manifestation as diagnosed by a rheumatologist

Radiographic definition: presence of sacroiliitis according to modified NY criteria (mNYc).

axSpA patients were stratified into axPsA/pso (with psoriasis either in patient history or present) and axSpA.

Results

Psoriasis was documented in 182/1407 axSpA patients (13%). Of 1355 PsA patients, 295 (22%) fulfilled the clinical definition of axPsA. Using the radiographic definition, 127 (9%) PsA patients fulfilled mNYc, 230 (17%) did not fulfil mNYc and 998 (74%) did not undergo radiographic evaluation.

AxSpA/pso patients differed from axPsA regardless of the definition (Table 1). axPsA patients were older, less often HLA-B27 positive, and peripheral manifestations were much more often present in axPsA than in axSpA/pso. Uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease were more common in axSpA/pso.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of axSpA/pso patients and clinical resp. radiographic defined axPsA.

axSpA/psoaxPsA/clinaxPsA/radN182295127female gender, n (%)80 (44)178 (60.3)80 (63)age, mean (SD)47 (12.8)51.1 (11.3)51.6 (11.4)HLA-B27 positive, n (%)106 (67.1)44 (22.7)28 (32.9)CRP mg/l, mean (SD)8.7 (14.6)7.1 (11.8)6.9 (11.5)CRP ≥5 mg/l, n (%)70 (42.4)106 (40)50 (45.9)uveitis ever, n (%)26 (14.3)10 (3.4)7 (5.5)IBD ever, n (%)13 (7.1)14 (4.7)7 (5.5)≥3 comorbidities, n (%)48 (26.4)117 (39.7)48 (37.8)peripheral manifestations, n (%)65 (36.3)251 (85.1)109 (85.8)enthesitis, n (%)29 (16.2)77 (26.4)32 (25.4)number of sites with enthesitis, mean (SD)0.5 (1.6)0.9 (2.2)0.9 (1.9)affected joints, n (%)53 (29.6)234 (80.1)102 (80.3)number of affected joints, mean (SD)1.4 (3.7)6.8 (8.4)5 (5.9)physician global disease activity, mean (SD)5.6 (2.1)5.6 (1.9)5.6 (2)patient global disease activity, mean (SD)5.4 (2.6)5.9 (2.3)5.8 (2.2)patient pain, mean (SD)5.5 (2.6)5.7 (2.3)5.7 (2.2)sakroiliitis, n (%)124 (84.4)97 (56.1)127 (100)clinical axial definition, n (%)n.d.295 (100)97 (76.4)

In contrast, disease activity measured by physician global as well as patient global, and patient pain were similar in axSpA/pso and axPsA.

Conclusion

Regardless whether clinical or radiographic definitions of axPsA were used, differences to axSpA/pso patients were identified. These data indicate a need for a specific diagnostic, and a potentially more targeted treatment approach for axPsA.

Disclosure of Interests

Anne Regierer Grant/research support from: RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris., Anja Weiß Grant/research support from: RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris., Xenofon Baraliakos: None declared, Frank Behrens: None declared, Denis Poddubnyy: None declared, Georg Schett: None declared, Hanns-Martin Lorenz: None declared, Matthias Worsch: None declared, Anja Strangfeld Grant/research support from: RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris.

POS0234 HOW CLOSELY DO GERMAN RHEUMATOLOGISTS FOLLOW THE EULAR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WHEN MAKING THERAPEUTIC DECISIONS?

Background

EULAR developed recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) suggesting treatment escalation and changes at different stages of the disease to reach at least low disease activity with latest updates in 2013(1), 2016(2), and 2019(3). The recommendation to consider adding a biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) – or, since 2016, a Januskinase inhibitor (JAKi) – after the first conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD had failed and if poor prognostic factors (PPF) are present, was strengthened 2019. Since then, it is recommended that a bDMARD or a tsDMARD should be added.

Objectives

How closely are EULAR recommendations followed in daily rheumatologic practice in Germany?

Methods

Data were used from the long-term observational cohort RABBIT, which enrols patients with RA starting a bDMARD or JAKi, or a csDMARD after at least one previous csDMARD failure. According to the publication of the recommendations, periods from [I] 01/2014 – 12/2016, [II] 01/2017 – 06/2020 and [III] 07/2020 – 04/2021 were investigated. Patients who were in at least moderate disease activity (DAS28≥3.2) were selected and analysed, if they started a csDMARD, a bDMARD or a JAKi. Patients were further stratified by prior treatments and by the presence of PPF (≥4 swollen joints, positive rheumatoid factor or ACPA, erosions).

Results

Of the 15,150 patients with RA enrolled since 2007, 2,922 treatments were initiated in period [I], 4,580 in [II] and 415 in [III] (see Table 1). The proportion of patients with 1 previous csDMARD and ≥1 PPF who – in agreement with the recommendations – switched to bDMARD or JAKi, increased from 30% (only bDMARDs) in period [I] to 68% (bDMARDs + JAKi) in [III]. The proportions were even higher in patients with 2 previous csDMARDs (86% in [I], 93% in [III]). As recommended, JAKi were used more often as first line therapy (after csDMARD) in period [III].

Table 1.

Number and percentages of treatment changes at different stages of the disease.

Patients with1 previous csDMARD & no PPF1 previous csDMARD & ≥1 PPF2 previous csDMARDs1 previous bDMARD/ JAKi≥2 previous bDMARDs/ JAKiEULAR Recommendationchange/add csDMARDadd bDMARD/ JAKi**add bDMARD/ JAKichange to another bDMARD/JAKiTotal numbers of treatment changes612073222017001863Period [I]n=25n=848n=986n=543n=52001/2014 – 12/2016*N=2,922csDMARD21 (84.0%)594 (70.0%)134 (13.6%)199 (36.6%)275 (52.9%)bDMARD4 (16.0%)254 (30.0%)852 (86.4%)344 (63.4%)245 (47.1%)Period [II]n=32n=1,090n=1,136n=1,054n=1,26801/2017 – 06/2020N=4,580csDMARD16 (50.0%)469 (43.0%)96 (8.5%)261 (24.8%)274 (21.6%)bDMARD13 (40.6%)509 (46.7%)822 (72.4%)403 (38.2%)288 (22.7%)JAKi3 (9.4%)112 (10.3%)218 (19.2%)390 (37.0%)706 (55.7%)Period [III]n=4n=135n=98n=103n=7507/2020 – 04/2021N=415csDMARD043 (31.9%)7 (7.1%)15 (14.6%)9 (12.0%)bDMARD1 (25.0%)64 (47.4%)60 (61.2%)36 (35.0%)23 (30.7%)JAKi3 (75.0%)28 (20.7%)31 (31.6%)52 (50.5%)43 (57.3%)

EULAR treatment recommendations are indicated in green. *JAKi were not available. **Recommendation in period [I]: Addition of a bDMARD should be considered; in [II]: Addition of a bDMARD or a tsDMARD should be considered, current practice would be to start a bDMARD; in [III]: a bDMARD or a tsDMARD should be added. PPF, poor prognostic factor.

Conclusion

JAKi have become more established, especially in bionaive patients, but have not reached the significance of biologics in certain patient groups. The early decision for a bDMARD or JAKi has been made more frequently in recent years, yet one third of patients did not receive the recommended treatment escalation. We cannot conclude from the data, which considerations led to the decision not to escalate. Of note, German rheumatologists should rather follow the German treatment guidelines(4), which are, however, very similar to the EULAR recommendations.

References

[1]PMID: 24161836;

[2]PMID: 28264816;

[3]PMID: 31969328;

[4]PMID: 29968101

Acknowledgements

RABBIT is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, VIATRIS and UCB.

Disclosure of Interests

Yvette Meissner Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Doreen Huschek: None declared, Angela Zink Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Jörg Kaufmann: None declared, Martin Bohl-Buehler Speakers bureau: Speaker for several companies in unrestricted educational programs, each of them unrestricted state-of-the-art-talks., Consultant of: PreviPharma, basic research in osteology, no overlap with rheumatological diseases, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB.

OP0306 IMPACT OF INFLAMMATION ON INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS - AN ANALYSIS OF THE GERMAN BIOLOGICS REGISTER RABBIT

Background

Ten percent of patients with prevalent rheumatoid arthritis (RA) develop an interstitial lung disease (ILD), which is associated with higher mortality (1). A previous study identified high/moderate disease activity, but not CRP, as a risk factor for RA-ILD (2).

Objectives

To analyse whether systemic inflammation (CRP and ESR) and/or disease activity measured with a composite score (DAS28-ESR) are associated with the occurrence of ILD in patients with RA.

Methods

Data from RA patients observed in the biologics register RABBIT until 10/2020 were included. Patients with incident ILD were selected as cases and matched 1:5 to controls using a modified risk-set sampling (controls had no ILD during the entire observation time). Matching criteria were age, sex, RA duration, date of enrolment and observation time. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed by conditional logistic regression and adjusted for factors identified by a directed acyclic graph (DAG), namely smoking, rheumatoid factor (RF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, number of biologics until index date (date of ILD-diagnosis in cases, date after the respective observation time in controls) and mean glucocorticoid dosage (12 months prior index date). For the regression, CRP and ESR were log-transformed due to their skewed distribution, and missing values were addressed by multiple imputations (n=10).

Results

Out of 19,148 RA patients enrolled since 2001, 133 patients with incident ILD were identified. Half of the ILDs were diagnosed by computed tomography (n=67), 8% by x-ray (n=10) and in 42% the method was unknown (n=56).

At baseline, cases and controls had a mean age of 61 years, 68% were female, and mean RA disease duration was 9 years. Differences were observed in smoking status (59% ever smokers in cases vs. 48% in controls), RF positivity (84% vs. 72%) and the sum of comorbidities (means 3.1 vs. 2.3).

During the 12 months prior to the index date, mean values of CRP and especially of ESR were significantly higher in cases compared to controls. This difference was not observed for DAS28 (Figure 1, upper figures). Furthermore, more cases than controls were in a high inflammatory status, but not in at least moderate disease activity (Figure 1, lower figures). The adjusted regression analyses confirmed these results: CRP and ESR were significantly associated with incident ILD both at the time of diagnosis and in the 12 previous months, and results were even more pronounced with elevated CRP and ESR, which was not the case for DAS28 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Results of the conditional logistic regression for the risk of ILD.

Crude OR (95% CI)Adjusted OR (95% CI)At index dateLog CRP1.55 (1.25 – 1.92)1.55 (1.24 – 1.94)CRP≥5 vs. CRP<52.43 (1.55 – 3.81)2.41 (1.49 – 3.88)Log ESR1.56 (1.22 – 2.00)1.56 (1.21 – 2.01)ESR >21 vs. ESR ≤212.12 (1.40 – 3.19)2.12 (1.37 – 3.29)DAS281.17 (1.01 – 1.35)1.16 (0.99 – 1.35)DAS28 >3.2 vs. DAS28 ≤3.21.31 (0.86 – 1.99)1.32 (0.85 – 2.06)Within 12 months prior to index dateLog CRP1.41 (1.14 – 1.75)1.38 (1.09 – 1.74)CRP≥5 vs. CRP<52.60 (1.59 – 4.27)2.60 (1.54 – 4.41)Log ESR1.65 (1.26 – 2.16)1.60 (1.21 – 2.12)ESR >21 vs. ESR ≤212.43 (1.53 – 3.86)2.35 (1.45 – 3.81)DAS281.16 (0.99 – 1.36)1.13 (0.95 – 1.34)DAS28 >3.2 vs. DAS28 ≤3.21.37 (0.82 – 2.30)1.37 (0.79 – 2.35)Figure 1

. Upper Figures. Unimputed and untransformed CRP, ESR and DAS28 12 months prior to the index date as means with 95% CI, computed by mixed models with matching strata as random effects. The left y-axis refers to CRP and ESR, the right to DAS28. Lower Figures. Percentages of patients with CRP≥5, ESR>21 and DAS28>3.2 12 months prior to the index date.

Conclusion

In contrast to other data, our analyses found that markers of systemic inflammation, but not the DAS28 composite score, are associated with the occurrence of incident ILD in patients with RA and can be predictors for the development of RA-ILD. Therefore, in a treat-to-target approach, rheumatologists should pay particular attention to controlling systemic inflammation.

References

[1]PMID: 20851924

[2]PMID: 30951251

Acknowledgements

RABBIT is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, Viatris and UCB.

Disclosure of Interests

Ronja Ramien: None declared, Tatjana Rudi: None declared, Matthias Schneider Speakers bureau: Astra-Zeneca; Biogen; BMS; Celgene; Chugai; GSK; Janssen-Cilag; Lilly; Pfizer; UCB, Paid instructor for: Lilly, Consultant of: Abbvie; Astra-Zeneca; Boehringer-Ingelheim; GSK; Lilly; Novartis; Pfizer; Protagen; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie; Astra-Zeneca; GSK; UCB, Sabine Balzer: None declared, Andreas Krause Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB, Martin Schaefer: None declared, Yvette Meissner Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB.

OP0135 RISK OF CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS UNDER JANUS KINASE INHIBITORS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: OBSERVATIONAL DATA FROM THE GERMAN RABBIT REGISTER

Background

In 2021, the European and US-American regulatory agencies EMA and FDA issued warnings about the cardiovascular (CV) safety of the Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) tofacitinib and required changes in labelling. These actions were based on results of the post-authorisation safety trial Oral Surveillance(1).

Objectives

To analyse major cardiovascular events (MACE) under treatment with JAKi, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs - bionaive) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) observed in daily rheumatological care.

Methods

Data from patients enrolled in the biologics register RABBIT with treatment episodes from 01/2017 - 04/2021 were included. Incidence rates (IR) of MACE per 100 patient-years (PY) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjusted risk ratios (RR) were calculated for all and for high-risk patients (age ≥ 50 years and ≥ 1 CV risk factor). Poisson regression analysis was adjusted for age, sex, smoking, disease activity, prior therapies, glucocorticoids and comorbidities.

Results

Starting from 2017, 2030 JAKi, 2338 TNFi and 871 csDMARD initiations were documented. Patients with a JAKi start were slightly older, more often women and had a longer RA disease duration (Table 1). The proportion with positive autoantibodies was higher than in the TNFi and csDMARD group, the physical function was lower, and they had received more previous biologic treatments. Characteristics of high-risk patients are also given in the Table 1.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics at the start of a JAKi, TNFi or csDMARD.

ALL PATIENTSHIGH RISK PATIENTS*JAKiTNFicsDMARDJAKiTNFicsDMARD# treatment starts2030233887112151254508Age59.9 ± 11.657.6 ± 13.059.5 ± 12.764.3 ± 8.963.5 ± 8.964.4 ± 9.2Women1573 (77.5)1707 (73.0)627 (72.0)907 (74.7)864 (68.9)355 (69.9)Disease duration12.6 ± 9.68.9 ± 8.55.7 ± 6.613.3 ± 9.99.7 ± 9.16.0 ± 7.0Rheumatoid factor/ ACPA positive1531 (79.2)1672 (74.2)548 (66.3)917 (79.7)890 (73.7)321 (66.5)# previous bDMARDs2.0 ± 1.80.7 ± 1.202.0 ± 1.80.7 ± 1.20DAS28-ESR4.2 ± 1.44.5 ± 1.44.2 ± 1.34.4 ± 1.54.7 ± 1.34.3 ± 1.3Percentage of full physical function63.3 ± 24.168.6 ± 22.472.3 ± 21.960.3 ± 24.264.4 ± 23.369.6 ± 22.7Glucocorticoids ≥10 mg/d170 (17.5)239 (21.5)49 (12.4)112 (18.6)142 (22.3)23 (10.0)BMI >30 kg/m2565 (28.2)631 (27.4)271 (31.7)383 (31.8)413 (33.3)180 (36.0)Sum of comorbidities2.9 ± 2.52.6 ± 2.42.2 ± 2.23.7 ± 2.63.5 ± 2.53.1 ± 2.3Current smokers461 (26.3)617 (28.5)274 (33.5)355 (33.5)466 (39.5)202 (42.3)Previous smokers551 (31.4)692 (31.9)230 (28.1)300 (28.3)338 (28.6)114 (23.9)

Values are given as mean ± standard deviation or number (percentage). *Age ≥50 years and ≥ 1 CV risk factor (hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, hyperlipoproteinaemia, current smoking)

In total, 28 incident MACE were reported. Patients under treatment with JAKi, TNFi and csDMARD showed comparable IR for MACE between 0.26 and 0.41 events per 100 PY (Figure 1). High-risk patients showed higher IRs. The median time under treatment was 10 months on JAKi and TNFi, and 12 months on csDMARDs. The majority of events were reported in the first year after treatment start. In the adjusted analyses, JAKi (RR 0.94 [95% CI 0.39; 2.28]) and csDMARDs (RR 0.85 [0.25; 2.88]) did not show a significantly increased risk for MACE compared with TNFi in unselected patients, and also not in high-risk patients (JAKi: RR 0.90 [0.37; 2.17]; csDMARDs: RR 0.61 [0.16; 2.28]).

Figure 1.

Incidence rates of MACE per 100 patient years by treatment group.

Conclusion

IR of MACE in patients receiving JAKi in a real-world setting was lower than the IR reported for tofacitinib in the Oral Surveillance study. We found no evidence of an increased risk of MACE with JAKi compared to TNFi, although patients in the JAKi group were older and had longer disease duration.

References

[1]Pfizer Press Release (27 Jan 2021):https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-shares-co-primary-endpoint-results-post-marketing

Acknowledgements

RABBIT is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, VIATRIS and UCB.

Disclosure of Interests

Yvette Meissner Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Katinka Albrecht: None declared, Jörn Kekow: None declared, Silke Zinke Speakers bureau: Biogen, Galapagos, UCB, Lilly, Consultant of: Abbvie, Biogen, Galapagos, Novartis, Hans-Peter Tony Consultant of: AbbVie, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Chugai, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Martin Schaefer: None declared, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB.

OP0249 CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH POOR COVID-19 OUTCOMES IN PEOPLE WITH PSORIASIS AND SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: DATA FROM THE COVID-19 PsoProtect AND GLOBAL RHEUMATOLOGY ALLIANCE PHYSICIAN-REPORTED REGISTRIES

Background

Some factors associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes have been identified in patients with psoriasis (PsO) and inflammatory/autoimmune rheumatic diseases, namely older age, male sex, comorbidity burden, higher disease activity, and certain medications such as rituximab. However, information about specificities of patients with PsO, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), including disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) specifically licensed for these conditions, such as IL-17 inhibitors (IL-17i), IL-23/IL-12 + 23 inhibitors (IL-23/IL-12 + 23i), and apremilast, is lacking.

Objectives

To determine characteristics associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with PsO, PsA and axSpA.

Methods

This study was a pooled analysis of data from two physician-reported registries: the Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection (PsoProtect), comprising patients with PsO/PsA, and the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) registry, comprising patients with PsA/axSpA. Data from the beginning of the pandemic up to 25 October, 2021 were included. An ordinal severity outcome was defined as: 1) not hospitalised, 2) hospitalised without death, and 3) death. A multivariable ordinal logistic regression model was constructed to assess the relationship between COVID-19 severity and demographic characteristics (age, sex, time period of infection), comorbidities (hypertension, other cardiovascular disease [CVD], chronic obstructive lung disease [COPD], asthma, other chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, cancer, smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus [DM]), rheumatic/skin disease (PsO, PsA, axSpA), physician-reported disease activity, and medication exposure (methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, TNFi, IL17i, IL-23/IL-12 + 23i, Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), apremilast, glucocorticoids [GC] and NSAIDs). Age-adjustment was performed employing four-knot restricted cubic splines. Country-adjustment was performed using random effects.

Results

A total of 5008 individuals with PsO (n=921), PsA (n=2263) and axSpA (n=1824) were included. Mean age was 50 years (SD 13.5) and 51.8% were male. Hospitalisation (without death) was observed in 14.6% of cases and 1.8% died. In the multivariable model, the following variables were associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes: older age (Figure 1), male sex (OR 1.53, 95%CI 1.29-1.82), CVD (hypertension alone: 1.26, 1.02-1.56; other CVD alone: 1.89, 1.22-2.94; vs no hypertension and no other CVD), COPD or asthma (1.75, 1.32-2.32), other lung disease (2.56, 1.66-3.97), chronic kidney disease (2.32, 1.50-3.59), obesity and DM (obesity alone: 1.36, 1.07-1.71; DM alone: 1.85, 1.39-2.47; obesity and DM: 1.89, 1.34-2.67; vs no obesity and no DM), higher disease activity and GC intake (remission/low disease activity and GC intake: 1.96, 1.36-2.82; moderate/severe disease activity and no GC intake: 1.35, 1.05-1.72; moderate/severe disease activity and GC intake 2.30, 1.41-3.74; vs remission/low disease activity and no GC intake). Conversely, the following variables were associated with less severe COVID-19 outcomes: time period after 15 June 2020 (16 June 2020-31 December 2020: 0.42, 0.34-0.51; 1 January 2021 onwards: 0.52, 0.41-0.67; vs time period until 15 June 2020), a diagnosis of PsO (without arthritis) (0.49, 0.37-0.65; vs PsA), and exposure to TNFi (0.58, 0.45-0.75; vs no DMARDs), IL17i (0.63, 0.45-0.88; vs no DMARDs), IL-23/IL-12 + 23i (0.68, 0.46-0.997; vs no DMARDs) and NSAIDs (0.77, 0.60-0.98; vs no NSAIDs).

Conclusion

More severe COVID-19 outcomes in PsO, PsA and axSpA are largely driven by demographic factors (age, sex), comorbidities, and active disease. None of the DMARDs typically used in PsO, PsA and axSpA, were associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes, including IL-17i, IL-23/IL-12 + 23i, JAKi and apremilast.

Acknowledgements

We thank all the contributors to the COVID-19 PsoProtect, GRA and EULAR Registries.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Table 1.

Profile of vaccinated IRD patients

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

Conclusion

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

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

OP0225 DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS IN PSA: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS FROM THE NATIONAL GERMAN RABBIT-SPA REGISTRY

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting the musculoskeletal system as well as skin and nails. The prevalence of depression in psoriasis and PsA is high and ranges from 7-40% [1]. Persistent depressive mood may influence disease activity outcome in PsA, especially patient-reported outcomes.

Objectives:

To assess the correlation of depressive symptoms with PsA-specific outcome parameters.

Methods:

RABBIT-SpA is a prospective longitudinal cohort study including PsA patients enrolled at start of a new conventional treatment or b/tsDMARD treatment. In regularly provided follow-up questionnaires, physician- and patient-reported information on the disease course including the depression screening tool WHO-5 to assess mental health is collected. For the current analysis, the WHO-5 score was categorised into 4 groups using validated cut-offs: severe depressive symptoms <13, moderate depressive symptoms 13-28, mild depressive symptoms 29-50, well-being >50. Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated to analyse the relationship between the WHO-5 score and various PsA related outcome parameters.

Results:

936 PsA patients were included. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. In 411 patients (43.9%) the WHO-5 score indicated well-being, 249 (26.6%) had mild depressive, 203 (21.7%) moderate depressive and 73 patients (7.8%) severe depressive symptoms. WHO-5 results correlated with patient reported skin involvement (DLQI: -0.25, patient assessment skin: -0.17), and the composite scores DAPSA (-0.33) and DAS28 (-0.28) as well as with patient reported pain (-0.43) and patient global disease assessment (-0.42). The highest correlation was found for physician assessed global health status (-0.51) and PSAID (-0.62). No significant correlation was found with CRP, swollen joint count and physician assessed skin involvement including body surface area (BSA).

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of patients included in the analysis stratified by WHO-5 categories.

ParameterWHO-5 (<13) severeN=73WHO-5 (13-28) moderateN=203WHO-5 (29-50) mildN=249WHO-5 (>50) well-beingN=411TotalN=936Age, mean (SD)52.6 (11.4)51 (11.3)51.4 (12.5)52.8 (12.7)52 (12.2)Female, n (%)52 (71.2)127 (62.6)157 (63.1)227 (55.2)563 (60.1)Disease duration, years, mean (SD)8.3 (8.7)6 (7.9)6.2 (6.7)6.4 (7.5)6.4 (7.5)Dactylitis, n (%)14 (19.7)31 (15.5)46 (18.5)77 (18.8)168 (18.1)Axial involvement, n (%)14 (19.7)54 (26.9)49 (19.7)71 (17.3)188 (20.2)Nail involvement, n (%)34 (47.2)85 (42.3)106 (42.6)158 (38.6)383 (41.1)BMI>=30, n (%)37 (51.4)75 (37.1)98 (39.5)125 (30.9)335 (36.2)CRP of >=5 mg/L, n (%)33 (51.6)84 (45.4)99 (46.5)138 (39.1)354 (43.4)BSA (0-100), mean (SD)10.1 (18.3)9.5 (16.8)8.5 (14.9)8.1 (14.6)8.7 (15.5)Physician assessed global health (NRS 0-10), mean (SD)6.3 (1.5)5.6 (1.8)5.2 (1.7)4.9 (1.9)5.2 (1.9)TJC68, mean (SD)9.9 (7.1)8.6 (7.6)8.2 (7.6)7.3 (8.2)8 (7.8)SJC66, mean (SD)6 (5.2)4.8 (4.9)4.7 (4.4)4.3 (3.8)4.6 (4.4)DAPSA, mean (SD)29.3 (11.1)25.1 (12.9)23.4 (12.1)18.9 (12.4)22.3 (12.8)DAS28-CRP, mean (SD)4.1 (1)3.8 (1.2)3.7 (1.1)3.2 (1.1)3.6 (1.2)Patient assessed global health (NRS 0-10), mean (SD)7.9 (2.1)6.6 (2.1)5.9 (2)4.8 (2.3)5.7 (2.4)Patient assessed pain (NRS 0-10), mean (SD)7.8 (1.8)6.4 (2.1)5.8 (2)4.6 (2.4)5.5 (2.4)DLQI (0-30), mean (SD)8.5 (8.2)7.8 (7.2)5.4 (5.7)4.1 (4.9)5.6 (6.2)PSAID (0-10), mean (SD)6.9 (1.8)5.5 (1.8)4.4 (1.7)3 (1.7)4.2 (2.2)

Conclusion:

The impact of depressive symptoms on outcome parameters used in rheumatology is increasingly being recognised. Interestingly, direct measures of inflammatory disease activity of joint and skin disease such as BSA, CRP, and swollen joint count were not correlated with depressive symptoms. The highest correlation was found for broader assessments like global health status and PSAID.

References:

[1]Haugeberg et al. Arthritis research & Therapy, 2020, 22:198

Acknowledgements:

RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris.

We thank all participating rheumatologists and patients.

Disclosure of Interests:

Anne Regierer Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris., Anja Weiß Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris., Martin Bohl-Buehler: None declared, Xenofon Baraliakos: None declared, Frank Behrens: None declared, Georg Schett: None declared, Anja Strangfeld Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Viatris.

OP0286 CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH SEVERE COVID-19 OUTCOMES IN SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS (SLE): RESULTS FROM THE COVID-19 GLOBAL RHEUMATOLOGY ALLIANCE (COVID-19 GRA)

Background:

An increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes may be seen in patients with autoimmune diseases on moderate to high daily doses of glucocorticoids, as well as in those with comorbidities. However, specific information about COVID-19 outcomes in SLE is scarce.

Objectives:

To determine the characteristics associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in a multi-national cross-sectional registry of COVID-19 patients with SLE.

Methods:

SLE adult patients from a physician-reported registry of the COVID-19 GRA were studied. Variables collected at COVID-19 diagnosis included age, sex, race/ethnicity, region, comorbidities, disease activity, time period of COVID-19 diagnosis, glucocorticoid (GC) dose, and immunomodulatory therapy. Immunomodulatory therapy was categorized as: antimalarials only, no SLE therapy, traditional immunosuppressive (IS) drug monotherapy, biologics/targeted synthetic IS drug monotherapy, and biologic and traditional IS drug combination therapy. We used an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome defined as: not hospitalized/hospitalized without supplementary oxygen; hospitalized with non-invasive ventilation; hospitalized with mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; and death. An ordinal logistic regression model was constructed to assess the association between demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medications, disease activity and COVID-19 severity. This assumed that the relationship between each pair of outcome groups is of the same direction and magnitude.

Results:

Of 1069 SLE patients included, 1047 (89.6%) were female, with a mean age of 44.5 (SD: 14.1) years. Patient outcomes included 815 (78.8%) not hospitalized/hospitalized without supplementary oxygen; 116 (11.2) hospitalized with non-invasive ventilation, 25 (2.4%) hospitalized with mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and 78 (7.5%) died. In a multivariate model (n=804), increased age [OR=1.03 (1.01, 1.04)], male sex [OR =1.93 (1.21, 3.08)], COVID-19 diagnosis between June 2020 and January 2021 (OR =1.87 (1.17, 3.00)), no IS drug use [OR =2.29 (1.34, 3.91)], chronic renal disease [OR =2.34 (1.48, 3.70)], cardiovascular disease [OR =1.93 (1.34, 3.91)] and moderate/high disease activity [OR =2.24 (1.46, 3.43)] were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Compared with no use of GC, patients using GC had a higher odds of poor outcome: 0-5 mg/d, OR =1.98 (1.33, 2.96); 5-10 mg/d, OR =2.88 (1.27, 6.56); >10 mg/d, OR =2.01 (1.26, 3.21) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in SLE. (N=804)

OR (95% CI)Age, years1.03 (1.01, 1.04)Sex, Male1.93 (1.21, 3.08)Race/Ethnicity, Non-White vs White1.47 (0.87, 2.50)RegionEuropeRef.North America0.67 (0.29, 1.54)South America0.67 (0.29, 1.54)Other1.93 (0.85, 4.39)Season, June 16th 2020-January 8th 2021 vs January-June 15th 20201.87 (1.17, 3.00)Glucocorticoids0 mg/dayRef.0-5 mg/day1.98 (1.33, 2.96)5-10 mg/day2.88 (1.27, 6.56)=>10 mg/day2.01 (1.26, 3.21)Medication CategoryAntimalarial onlyRef.No IS drugs2.29 (1.34, 3.91)Traditional IS drugs as monotherapy1.17 (0.77, 1.77)b/ts IS drugs as monotherapy1.00 (0.37, 2.71)Combination of traditional and b/ts IS1.00 (0.55, 1.82)Comorbidity BurdenNumber of Comorbidities (excluding renal and cardiovascular disease)1.39 (0.97, 1.99)Chronic renal disease2.34 (1.48, 3.70)Cardiovascular disease1.93 (1.34, 3.91)Disease Activity, Moderate/ high vs Remission/ low 2.24 (1.46, 3.43)

IS: immunosuppressive. b/ts: biologics/targeted synthetics

Conclusion:

Increased age, male sex, glucocorticoid use, chronic renal disease, cardiovascular disease and moderate/high disease activity at time of COVID-19 diagnosis were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in SLE. Potential limitations include possible selection bias (physician reporting), the cross-sectional nature of the data, and the assumptions underlying the outcomes modelling.

Acknowledgements:

The views expressed here are those of the authors and participating members of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance and do not necessarily represent the views of the ACR, EULAR) the UK National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), or the UK Department of Health, or any other organization.

Disclosure of Interests:

Manuel F. Ugarte-Gil Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Graciela S Alarcon: None declared, Andrea Seet: None declared, Zara Izadi: None declared, Cristina Reategui Sokolova: None declared, Ann E Clarke Consultant of: AstraZeneca, BristolMyersSquibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Exagen Diagnostics, Leanna Wise: None declared, Guillermo Pons-Estel: None declared, Maria Jose Santos: None declared, Sasha Bernatsky: None declared, Lauren Mathias: None declared, Nathan Lim: None declared, Jeffrey Sparks Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen, and Optum unrelated to this work., Grant/research support from: Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Zachary Wallace Consultant of: Viela Bio and MedPace, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi, Kimme Hyrich Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Grant/research support from: MS, UCB, and Pfizer, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Lilly, Mylan, Hexal, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Laure Gossec Consultant of: Abbvie, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Loreto Carmona: None declared, Elsa Mateus Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal S.A., MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharmakern, GAfPA, Saskia Lawson-Tovey: None declared, Laura Trupin: None declared, Stephanie Rush: None declared, Gabriela Schmajuk: None declared, Patti Katz: None declared, Lindsay Jacobsohn: None declared, Samar Al Emadi: None declared, Emily Gilbert: None declared, Ali Duarte-Garcia: None declared, Maria Valenzuela-Almada: None declared, Tiffany Hsu: None declared, Kristin D’Silva: None declared, Naomi Serling-Boyd: None declared, Philippe Dieudé Consultant of: Boerhinger Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Sanofi, Pfizer, Chugai, Roche, Janssen unrelated to this work, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugaii, Pfizer, unrelated to this work, Elena Nikiphorou: None declared, Vanessa Kronzer: None declared, Namrata Singh: None declared, Beth Wallace: None declared, Akpabio Akpabio: None declared, Ranjeny Thomas: None declared, Suleman Bhana Consultant of: AbbVie, Horizon, Novartis, and Pfizer (all <$10,000) unrelated to this work, Wendy Costello: None declared, Rebecca Grainger Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Cornerstones, Jonathan Hausmann Consultant of: Novartis, Sobi, Biogen, all unrelated to this work (<$10,000), Jean Liew Grant/research support from: Pfizer outside the submitted work, Emily Sirotich Grant/research support from: Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient run, volunteer based organization whose activities are largely supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies, Paul Sufka: None declared, Philip Robinson Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB (all < $10,000), Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB (all < $10,000), Pedro Machado Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study (all < $10,000)., Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study (all < $10,000), Milena Gianfrancesco: None declared, Jinoos Yazdany Consultant of: Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca unrelated to this project

POS0296 DOSING OF BDMARDS IN AXSPA AND PSA IN A REAL WORLD SETTING

Background:

The treatment of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has been revolutionised by the introduction of biologic DMARDs targeting TNF, IL17, and IL23 inhibitors (i). In Germany, about 30-50% of axSpA and PsA patients receive treatment with bDMARDs. Although many patients benefit from these drugs, in some patients effectiveness of the standard dose may be insufficient and higher doses are used.

Objectives:

To describe dosing of TNFi and non-TNFi bDMARDs over a 2 year period in a real world cohort of patients with axSpA and PsA managed by rheumatologists.

Methods:

RABBIT-SpA is a prospective longitudinal cohort study including axSpA and PsA patients enrolled at the start of a new conventional treatment (including NSAID) or b/tsDMARD treatment. Description of dosing of TNFi (adalimumab bio-original (bo), adalimumab bio-similar (bs), etanercept bo, etanercept bs, golimumab, certolizumab) in comparison to nonTNFi-bDMARDs (secukinumab, ustekinumab, ixekizumab, guselkumab) in axSpA and PsA. Standard dosing was defined according to the current labels for axSpA and PsA.

Results:

1628 patients (axSpA: n=903, PsA: n=725) were included in this analysis. At inclusion mean age was 44 years in axSpA and 51 years in PsA. 44% of patients with axSpA and 58% of those with PsA were female. The mean disease duration of axSpA was 7.6 years, of PsA 6.4 years.

Standard doses of TNFi were used during a 2 year period in > 90% of patients with axSpA and PsA (Figure 1). In contrast, standard doses of non-TNFi-bDMARDs were only used in 70-80% of patients. The percentage of documented higher doses in patients with axSpA ranged from 20-30% at different time points. In PsA, this percentage increased from 27% at baseline to 44% at 2 years. On the other hand, TNFi were used in lower doses than the label in up to 9% and 7 % of patients with axSpA and PsA, respectively, after 2 years.

Figure 1.

Percentages of patients with axSpA or PsA who received less than, equal to, or more than the approved doses of bDMARDs at baseline and at 5 follow-up visits.

Conclusion:

While TNFi are used in licensed doses in most patients, non-TNFi-bDMARDs were often used in higher doses, which corresponds to higher doses approved in other indications like psoriasis. The effectiveness of this treatment strategy in axSpA and PsA needs to be analysed further.

Acknowledgements:

RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Viatris.

We thank all participating patients and rheumatologists.

Disclosure of Interests:

Anne Regierer Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Viatris., Anja Weiß Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Viatris., Denis Poddubnyy: None declared, Herbert Kellner: None declared, Frank Behrens: None declared, Georg Schett: None declared, Juergen Braun: None declared, Joachim Sieper: None declared, Anja Strangfeld Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Viatris

AB0472 DISEASE ACTIVITY AND OUTCOME IN PREGNANCIES OF PATIENTS WITH SpA - DATA FROM THE GERMAN PREGNANCY REGISTER RHEKISS

Background:

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) is a severe chronic inflammatory disease, which affects quality of life and functional status. It frequently occurs in women of childbearing age. Active disease and TNFi discontinuation at early pregnancy were found to be risk factors for flares during pregnancy (1).

Objectives:

To compare disease activity during pregnancy in patients with or without bDMARD exposure at conception and during pregnancy and to assess pregnancy outcomes.

Methods:

RHEKISS is a prospective longitudinal cohort study including patients with confirmed diagnose of inflammatory rheumatic disease. Pregnant patients are eligible to be enrolled until the 20th week of gestation regardless of drug treatment. During observation, information on treatment, disease and pregnancy course, and outcome is collected from rheumatologists and patients. For this analysis, pregnancies of patients with SpA were selected and stratified into three groups according to their exposure to bDMARDs.

Results:

Of 140 SpA pregnancies included, 74 (53%) were not exposed to bDMARDs at conception (group 1), 38 (27%) were exposed to bDMARDs at conception, but not during pregnancy (group 2) and 28 (20%) were continuously exposed to bDMARDs at conception and during pregnancy (group 3). Certolizumab (50%), Adalimumab (20%), Etanercept (8%) and Infliximab (8%) were the most frequently prescribed bDMARDs at beginning of pregnancy. Baseline characteristics according to treatment exposure are shown in Table 1. Frequency of flares was highest in group 2: 21%, 38%, and 39% of patients flared during the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimester. These rates were 20%, 25%, and 21% in group 1 and 8%, 20%, and zero in group 3. The difference in flare rates was also mirrored in the course of physician assessed global disease activity (Figure 1). Whereas patients in group 1 seemed to have a quite stable disease activity during pregnancy, those who were in group 2 had an increasing activity of disease during pregnancy with an even higher increase of disease activity after giving birth. Patients in group 3 had the lowest disease activity.

Of 137 singleton pregnancies, 130 (95%) ended in live birth. Of 6 spontaneous abortions 2 were in every of the three groups. One pregnancy in group 1 was terminated in gestational week 22 due to suspect malformation. One baby of the triple pregnancy was born and two aborted. All babies of the twin pregnancies were born healthy.

Conclusion:

SpA patients treated with bDMARDs at conception are not at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Our results in a larger patient population confirmed that discontinuation of bDMARDs after conception is associated with increased disease activity during pregnancy and after birth and a higher risk of flares.

References:

[1]van den Brandt S et al., Arthritis Res Ther. 2017; 19(1):64.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics; numbers are n (%) if not otherwise specified; * value at beginning of pregnancy: first 22 weeks after conception

Parameterno bDMARD at conception (group 1)n=74bDMARD at conception anddiscontinuedduring pregnancy(group 2)n=38bDMARD at conception andcontinuedduring pregnancy (group 3)n=28Totaln=140Singleton72 (97)37 (97.4)28 (100)137 (97.9)Twin1 (1.4)1 (2.6)02 (1.4)Triple1 (1.4)001 (0.7)New-York criteria fulfilled21 (33)17 (49)10 (48)48 (40)disease duration in years, mean (SD)6.4 (5.9)7 (4.1)5.8 (4)6.4 (5.1)age*, mean (SD)33.4 (4.9)32.3 (4)31.6 (3.4)32.7 (4.4)severity of illness*: asymptomatic4 (6)0 (0)3 (14)7 (6) mild31 (48)6 (17)4 (19)41 (34) moderate24 (38)21 (60)14 (67)59 (49) severe5 (8)8 (23)013 (11)HLA-B27 positive41 (62)24 (80)15 (75)80 (69)CRP in mg/l *, mean (SD)6.6 (8.2)5.4 (8.2)5.2 (4.9)6 (7.6)CRP >5mg/l *25 (41)9 (30)8 (35)42 (37)physician global* (NRS 0-10), mean (SD)2.6 (2)2.3 (2.5)1.7 (1.4)2.4 (2.1)BASDAI* (0-10), mean (SD)3.2 (2)2.9 (2.3)2.8 (1.5)3.1 (2)patient global* (NRS 0-10), mean (SD)3.3 (2.7)3 (2.8)3 (2.3)3.1 (2.6)Figure 1

Course of physician assessed global disease activity

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared.

OP0283 DOES TNF-INHIBITION DECREASE THE RISK OF SEVERE COVID-19 IN RMD-PATIENTS?

Background:

Patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) might have an increased risk for infection due to their immunomodulatory treatment, secondary to their disease and comorbidities. Recent studies suggest a decreased risk of severe COVID-19 in RMD-patients treated with biologics.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to assess courses of RMD patients treated with TNF-inhibitors (TNF-I) included in the German COVID-19 registry.

Methods:

In the German physician-reported COVID-19-RMD registry, patients with an RMD and confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infection were documented (data entered between March 30, 2020 and January 30, 2021). We analysed TNF-I treated patients, their course and outcome of the infection. Data were compared to RMD-patients treated with other immunomodulatory drugs (OID) than TNF-I.

Results:

A total of 269 patients were treated with a TNF-I (57% female) compared to 874 patients who were treated with OID (68% female). Median age was 52 years (range: 19-87) in the TNF-I-group versus 58 years (range: 18-91) in the OID-group. Rheumatoid arthritis was the most common diagnosis (38% in TNF-I-group vs. 52% in the OID-group), followed by ankylosing spondylitis (32% vs. 6%), psoriatic arthritis (22% vs. 11%) and other RMD (9% vs. 31%). Adalimumab (35%) and etanercept (35%) were the most frequently used TNF-I (tab. 1). Glucocorticoids (GC) were used in 22% of TNF-I-treated patients and in 42% of the OID-group.

Under TNF-I, stable disease was reported prior to the SARS-CoV-2-infection in 53% of the patients (OID-group: 47%), followed by low disease activity in 35% (OID: 34%), moderate disease activity in 6% (OID: 12%) and high disease activity in 4% (OID: 3%). Most frequent comorbidities were arterial hypertension (29% under TNF-I vs. 35% under OID), diabetes (8% vs. 11%) and cardiovascular diseases (7% vs. 12%).

The most common reported COVID-19 symptoms were dry cough (57% vs. 55%), fever (53% vs. 61%) and fatigue (50% vs. 49%). Hospitalization due to SARS-CoV infection was required in only 12% of the TNF-I-treated cases vs. in 29% in the OID-group. Oxygen treatment was necessary in 5% of the patients under TNF-I compared to 22% under OID and invasive ventilation in 2% in the TNF-I-group compared to 6% under OID. Most notably, no fatal courses of COVID-19 were reported among the 269 RMD-patients treated with TNF-I versus 49 deaths in the 874 cases (5.6%) treated with OID. Focussing on the hospitalizated TNF-I patients, the rate of concomitant GC use (p<0.001) and higher disease activity (p=0.005) was significant higher (tab.1).

Conclusion:

High or moderate RMD-disease activity is an important factor associated with severity of COVID-19 including mortality. In this large cohort RMD patients treated with TNF-I show a low hospitalisation rate and no fatal course. This is reassuring for patients and treating rheumatologists to use TNF-I to control RMD disease activity. The use of glucocorticoids and high disease activity seem to counteract possible protective effects of TNF-I.

Table 1.TNF inhibition (269)Other immunomodulation (874)Total patientsRate (%)Total patientsRate (%)Disease activitystable1415340847low933529934Moderate15610812High104293Comorbiditiescardiovascular diseases18710412arterial hypertension772930335bronchial asthma124657COPD/interstitial lung disease1148610chronic renal failure93779Osteoporosis135678Diabetes2289211COVID-19 related symptomsFever1425347855dry cough1525753061Expectoration3112839muscular pain973628032Fatigue1355042449Headache1013823727shortness of breath491824528no symptoms239566COVID-19 outcomeOutpatients2378861971Inpatients321225529need of oxygen treatment18718922invasive ventilation52496fatal course00496TNF inhibitorsAdalimumab9535Infliximab239Certolizumab3312Golimumab249Etanercept9435GC and disease activity in TNF-I treated patientsTNF-I inpatients treated with GC18/3256p< 0.001TNF-I outpatients treated with GC42/23718TNF-I inpatients with high disease activity4/3213TNF-I outpatients with high disease activity6/2376p= 0.005

Acknowledgements:

The authors would like to thank all physicians and personnel involved in the documentation of the cases in our registry.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

OP0288 MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS TO PREDICT COVID-19 ACUTE RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES: RESULTS FROM THE GLOBAL RHEUMATOLOGY ALLIANCE PROVIDER REGISTRY

Background:

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 and has been reported in approximately one-third of hospitalized patients with COVID-191. Risk factors associated with the development of ARDS include older age and diabetes2. However, little is known about factors associated with ARDS in the setting of COVID-19, in patients with rheumatic disease or those receiving immunosuppressive medications. Prediction algorithms using traditional regression methods perform poorly with rare outcomes, often yielding high specificity but very low sensitivity. Machine learning algorithms optimized for rare events are an alternative approach with potentially improved sensitivity for rare events, such as ARDS in COVID-19 among patients with rheumatic disease.

Objectives:

We aimed to develop a prediction model for ARDS in people with COVID-19 and pre-existing rheumatic disease using a series of machine learning algorithms and to identify risk factors associated with ARDS in this population.

Methods:

We used data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) Registry from March 24 to Nov 1, 2020. ARDS diagnosis was indicated by the reporting clinician. Five machine learning algorithms optimized for rare events predicted ARDS using 42 variables covering patient demographics, rheumatic disease diagnoses, medications used at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and comorbidities. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, area under curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Adjusted odds ratios corresponding to the 10 most influential predictors from the best performing model were derived using hierarchical multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression that accounted for within-country correlations.

Results:

A total of 5,931 COVID-19 cases from 67 countries were included in the analysis. Mean (SD) age was 54.9 (16.0) years, 4,152 (70.0%) were female, and 2,399 (40.5%) were hospitalized. ARDS was reported in 388 (6.5% of total and 15.6% of hospitalized) cases. Statistically significant differences in the risk of ARDS were observed by demographics, diagnoses, medications, and comorbidities using unadjusted univariate comparisons (data not shown). Gradient boosting machine (GBM) had the highest sensitivity (0.81) and was considered the best performing model (Table 1). Hypertension, interstitial lung disease, kidney disease, diabetes, older age, glucocorticoids, and anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies were associated with the development of ARDS while tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were associated with a protective effect (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Performance of machine learning algorithms.

GBMSVMGLMNETNNETRFAccuracy0.790.680.660.660.67AUC0.750.700.740.580.74Sensitivity0.810.680.650.680.67Specificity0.490.600.730.480.68PPV0.960.960.970.950.97NPV0.160.120.130.090.13

GBM: Gradient Boosting Machine, SVM: Support vector machines, GLMNET: Lasso and Elastic-Net Regularized Generalized Linear Models, NNET: Neural Networks, RF: Random Forest. AUC: Area Under Curve; PPV: Positive Predictive Value; NPV: Negative Predictive Value.

Conclusion:

In this global cohort of patients with rheumatic disease, a machine learning model, GBM, predicted the onset of ARDS with 81% sensitivity using baseline information obtained at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. These results identify patients who may be at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Further studies are necessary to validate the proposed prediction model in external cohorts and to evaluate its clinical utility. Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the authors and participating members of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, and do not necessarily represent the views of the ACR, NIH, (UK) NHS, NIHR, or the department of Health.

References:

[1]Tzotzos SJ, Fischer B, Fischer H, Zeitlinger M. 2020;24(1):516.

[2]Wu C, Chen X, Cai Y, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(7):934-943.

Acknowledgements:

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

Disclosure of Interests:

Zara Izadi: None declared, Milena Gianfrancesco: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Speakers bureau: Abbvie and grant income from BMS, UCB, and Pfizer, all unrelated to this study., Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, outside the submitted work., Grant/research support from: A consortium of 13 companies (among them AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Lilly, Mylan, Hexal, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB) supporting the German RABBIT register., Laure Gossec Consultant of: Abbvie, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB., Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, all unrelated to this study., Loreto Carmona Consultant of: Loreto Carmona’s institute works by contract for laboratories among other institutions, such as Abbvie Spain, Eisai, Gebro Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Novartis, Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Roche Farma, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Pharma, Actelion Pharmaceuticals España, Grünenthal GmbH, and UCB Pharma., Elsa Mateus Grant/research support from: LPCDR received grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal S.A., MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharmakern, GAfPA and Pfizer., Saskia Lawson-Tovey: None declared, Laura Trupin: None declared, Stephanie Rush: None declared, Gabriela Schmajuk: None declared, Lindsay Jacobsohn: None declared, Patti Katz: None declared, Samar Al Emadi: None declared, Leanna Wise: None declared, Emily Gilbert: None declared, Maria Valenzuela-Almada: None declared, Ali Duarte-Garcia: None declared, Jeffrey Sparks Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen, and Optum unrelated to this work., Grant/research support from: Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb., Tiffany Hsu: None declared, Kristin D’Silva: None declared, Naomi Serling-Boyd: None declared, Suleman Bhana Employee of: Suleman Bhana reports non-branded marketing campaigns for Novartis (<$10,000)., Wendy Costello: None declared, Rebecca Grainger Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Cornerstones and travel assistance from Pfizer (all < $10,000)., Jonathan Hausmann Consultant of: Novartis, unrelated to this work (<$10,000)., Jean Liew Grant/research support from: Pfizer, outside the submitted work., Emily Sirotich Grant/research support from: Emily Sirotich is a Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient run, volunteer-based organization whose activities are largely supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies., Paul Sufka: None declared, Zachary Wallace Consultant of: Viela Bio and MedPace, outside the submitted work., Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi., Pedro Machado Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study (all < $10,000)., Philip Robinson Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB and travel assistance from Roche (all < $10,000)., Jinoos Yazdany Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Astra Zeneca, unrelated to this project.

POS0093 HETEROGENEITY IN ADVERSE EVENT ASSESSMENT BETWEEN COUNTRIES PARTICIPATING IN AN INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION OF REGISTRIES OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS USING JANUS KINASE INHIBITORS (THE JAK-POT STUDY)

Background:

Industry, regulators, and the rheumatology community have recognized the need for observational studies to monitor the safety of new antirheumatic agents. Registries provide a unique opportunity to understand the safety of newer therapies, but pharmacovigilance studies require large number of patients to evaluate rare drug-related adverse-events (AEs). Because JAK-inhibitors (JAKi) have only recently been approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, it makes sense to combine data from several registries in order to obtain a sufficiently large sample size to promote earlier detection of adverse events.

Objectives:

The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate how AEs are assessed in the various registries in preparation for a collaborative pharmacovigilance analysis, and present preliminary results.

Methods:

The “JAK-pot” collaboration includes 19 RA registries. The principal investigators of the participating registries were sent a structured questionnaire on AE assessment and 18 (94%) provided complete responses on the AE assessment procedures of their registries. We present simple descriptive statistics of the AE assessment procedures employed by the participating registries.

Results:

The 19 registries represent 7186 patients initiating a JAKi (Table 1), who are on average 57 years old, with a mean disease duration 11 years, seropositive (83%), female (82%) and with moderate disease activity at treatment initiation.

Table 1.Country, registryN° of patients on JAKi includedAustria, BIOREG87Belgium, TARDIS2113Canada, RHUMADATA363Czech Republic, ATTRA197Denmark, DANBIO506Finland, ROB-FIN229Germany, RABBIT620Italy, GISEA244Israel, I-RECORD96Netherlands, METEOR4Norway, NOR-DMARD97Portugal, REUMA.PT44Romania, RRBR252Russia, ARBITER428Slovenia, biorx.si141Spain, BIOBADASER139Switzerland, SCQM738Turkey, TURKBIO404UK, BSRBR484

After ineffectiveness, AEs was the second most common reason for JAKi discontinuation (25.5%), with large differences between registries (Figure 1).

Of the participating registries, 2 registries do not collect AEs, while 16 (89%) assess incident AEs, by means of a pre-specified extraction form (3 registries), by free text (5 registries), by a combination of both (6 registries) and/or the use of linkage to external electronic records (3registries). AEs are coded using a predefined coding system by 11 registries (MeDRA (8), other (3)), but nearly all are recording the severity of the AE (15, 94%), AE related-death (15, 94%), or AE-related hospitalisation (15, 94%). AEs of special interest, such as serious infections (15, 94%), thromboembolic events (15, 94%), or shingles (9, 56%), are recorded by most registries. Incident AEs are linked by the treating physician to specific therapies in 11 registries (69%), while the other 5 registries extrapolate potential causal associations based on therapy start and stop dates. A pre-specified adjudication process for AEs is made only by 5 registries (31%).

Conclusion:

Substantial heterogeneity exists among registries regarding AE assessment within the JAK-pot collaboration. These differences must be taken into account when analysing the safety of JAKi across different countries in collaborative studies. For comparative analyses, stratified analyses by country are required to account for differential AE assessment and varying degrees of potential under-reporting.

Disclosure of Interests:

Kim Lauper: None declared, Denis Mongin: None declared, Sytske Anne Bergstra: None declared, Denis Choquette: None declared, Catalin Codreanu: None declared, Diederik De Cock: None declared, Lene Dreyer: None declared, Ori Elkayam: None declared, Kimme Hyrich: None declared, Florenzo Iannone: None declared, Nevsun Inanc: None declared, Eirik kristianslund: None declared, Tore K. Kvien: None declared, Burkhard Leeb: None declared, Galina Lukina: None declared, Dan Nordström: None declared, Karel Pavelka: None declared, Manuel Pombo-Suarez: None declared, Ziga Rotar: None declared, Maria Jose Santos: None declared, Anja Strangfeld: None declared, Delphine Courvoisier: None declared, Axel Finckh Speakers bureau: Eli-Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli-Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: BMS, Pfizer.

POS1183 OUTCOMES OF COVID-19 INFECTION AMONG CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING RHEUMATIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES

Background:

It remains unknown whether children and young people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) who acquire COVID-19 infection have a more severe COVID-19 course, due to either underlying disease or immunosuppressive treatments.

Objectives:

To describe outcomes among children and young people with underlying RMD who acquire COVID-19 infection.

Methods:

All children and young people <18 years of age with COVID-19 (presumptive or confirmed) reported to the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which collects details regarding RMD diagnosis and treatment, COVID infection and outcomes, between 27 March 2020 and 29 January 2021 (cutoff date for this analysis) were included. Patient characteristics and COVID-19 outcomes are presented.

Results:

A total of 151 children and young people (age range 2-17 years; Table 1) have been reported to the database from 12 countries; mostly Spain (N=30), France (N=29), Israel (N=29), and Czechia (N=25). Most patients had a diagnosis of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA; N=92; 61%). Other diagnoses were autoinflammatory syndrome (including TRAPS, CAPS, FMF; 12%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (4%). There were 14 (9%) hospitalisations and 1 (0.7%) death reported due to COVID-19. The most commonly reported symptoms were fever (46%), cough (34%), anosmia (19%), and headache (19%). Only 19 (13%) patients reported glucocorticoid use. DMARD therapy was used by 104 (69%) patients; 67 (44%) were on csDMARDs (methotrexate [N=54], antimalarials [N=7]), 45 (30%) on anti-TNF, 9 (6%) on IL-6 inhibitors, and 7 (5%) on IL-1 inhibitors. Among the 145 patients with hospitalisation data, patients on any DMARD therapy (cs/b/tsDMARDs) had similar odds for hospitalisation compared with those not on therapy, adjusted for age (odds ratio 0.7; 95% CI 0.2, 2.4).

All PatientsN151GenderFemale94 (62%)Male56 (37%)Unknown1 (<1%)Age, yearsMedian (IQR)12 (8, 15)Range2 to 17Top Rheumatology DiagnosesJuvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA)92 (61%)Polyarthritis50 (33%)Oligoarthritis31 (21%)Systemic11 (7%)Autoinflammatory syndrome (e.g.18 (12%)TRAPS, CAPS, FMF)6 (4%)Systemic Lupus ErythematosusComorbiditiesNone stated112 (74%)Obesity9 (6%)Ocular inflammationAsthma9 (6%)3 (2%)Required HospitalisationYes14 (9%)No131 (87%)Missing6 (4%)Top 5 Symptoms ReportedFever69 (46%)Cough51 (34%)Anosmia28 (19%)Headache28 (19%)Fatigue23 (15%)Deaths due to COVID-19Yes1 (<1%)Treatment at onset of COVID-19 infectionGlucocorticoids19 (13%)csDMARDs67 (44%)Methotrexate54 (36%)Antimalarials7 (5%)Mycophenolate5 (3%)bDMARDs64 (42%)Anti-TNF45 (30%)IL-69 (6%)IL-18 (5%)Any DMARD104 (69%)

Conclusion:

These initial data on outcomes of COVID-19 in paediatric RMDs are very reassuring, with less than 1 in 10 patients reporting hospitalisation. Due to the database design and inherent reporting bias, this is likely an overestimate, suggesting that overall outcomes among this population appear to be generally good, with mild infection. Increasing case reports to the database will allow further exploration of drug- and disease-specific outcomes.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared.

POS1261 DISEASE ACTIVITY AND PAIN LEVELS ARE NOT INFLUENCED BY THE CURRENT COVID19 PANDEMIC IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES IN GERMANY – DATA FROM THE GERMAN COVID-19 PATIENT SURVEY

Background:

The current pandemic constitutes an entirely new situation for patients as well as physicians. The insecurity of the early phase, shutdowns, increasing infection rate and appearing SARS-CoV2 mutations have created a situation that makes live difficult especially for chronic diseases i.e. patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) and their treating physicians. The psychosocial burden that is created by this special situation is completely unknown and is estimated to be higher in patients than in the general population.

Objectives:

In order to measure the impact on our patients, the German COVID19-Rheuma patient survey was set up in April 2020, during Germany’s first shut down.

Methods:

The German COVID19-Rheuma patient survey is a patient reported longitudinal online survey where patients with RMD who registered between April and July 2020 are asked on a monthly base using an online survey on social, personal, medical factors, whether a COVID19 infection occurred, isolation measures were changed and scores regarding stress and anxiety are recorded. Between April and July 2020, 637 patients registered and completed a first survey. Up to January 2021, about 400 patients are still enrolled.

Here we present an interim analysis of the first 6 months regarding patients that were enrolled in April and May during the first shut-down. This first analysis compares the situation in the first lockdown to July, a phase with very low infection numbers in Germany, and to November, the beginning of the second lockdown.

Results:

150 patients (87% female) were enrolled in April/early May 2020. Mean age was 48 years (range 11-89). The majority of patients suffered from rheumatoid arthritis (51%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (17%), other spondyloarthropathies (10%) and connective tissue diseases (10%).

The majority of patients received antirheumatic therapies: 32% glucocorticoids (GC), 31% cDMARDs, 21% TNF inhibitors, 7% Jak inhibitors, and 9% other biologicals. Of the patients treated with GC, 25% were on GC monotherapy.

In the first lockdown, 26% of patients were working remotely and 24% were self-isolating (doubles included). Additionally, 48% were using masks that were not mandatory at that time and 41% were using disinfection in a regular manner. The rates for remote work and self-isolation did not change significantly over time while the mask use increased to 98% with the official obligation to do so. The use of disinfectants increased to 88% in November.

Regarding disease activity, no change in patient global assessment could be observed over time (4.3 ± 2.5 vs. 4.0 ±2.6 and 4.0 ± 2.5). Self-reported pain was also stable over time as were sleep disturbances. While 48.2% of patients who were receiving physiotherapy paused in April, only 10 and 14% did so in July and November, respectively. 11% of the patients paused their medication in the first lockdown, whereas only 2.75% did so in July and 3.4% in November. Contact with the treating rheumatologist was maintained over time in the majority of cases.

Conclusion:

While in the beginning of the pandemic the insecurity was considerable and the concern that the fear for infection would lead to inadequately treated patients with RMDs, we here show for the first time that on the one hand our patients were timely in taking adequate measures to keep themselves safe (e.g. self-isolating, mask use) and adapted to the clinical situation in not pausing their medication. Altogether, in this alert cohort, the pandemic did not lead to an increase of patient-reported disease activity in the first six months.

Acknowledgements:

Thanks goes to all patients who participated in the study.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS1414 RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE: PREVALENCE AND DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS IN GERMAN CLAIMS DATA

Background:

Persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD). ILD is a serious extraarticular manifestation in RA with a significantly increased mortality but without evidence-based drug therapy (1).

Objectives:

The aim of this analysis was to investigate the frequency of ILD diagnosis in RA using claims data and to identify the medications prescribed.

Methods:

Data from a large German statutory health insurance fund were used to identify persons with one inpatient or two outpatient diagnoses of RA (ICD-10: M05, M06) and ILD (J84.1, J84.8, J84.9 and M05.1+J99.0) in 2019. Specialist care by rheumatologists and/or pulmonologists was identified using physician specialty numbers. Drug prescriptions of glucocorticoids, conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs: methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, mycophenolate), biologic (b) DMARDs (abatacept, rituximab, TNF inhibitors, tocilizumab) or targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (tofacitinib) were identified by ATC codes. Prescriptions were included if a person received at least one prescription of the respective drug in 2019.

Results:

Among 7,479,000 persons over 18 years of age and insured in 2019 a total of 2.0% (n=148,000) had a diagnosis of RA and 1.1% (n=1,600) of those had an additional diagnosis of ILD. The majority of persons with RA+ILD diagnosis was older than 70 years (59%), mean age was 72 years, 68% were female and 41% had a diagnosis of serpositive RA (M05). 4 out of 5 patients were in rheumatologist or pulmonologist care (36% both, 22% only rheumatologist, 22% only pulmonologist). In total, 67% received glucocorticoids, 49% csDMARDs and 19% bDMARDs and 1.8% tofacitinib. TNF inhibitors were the most frequently prescribed bDMARDs followed by abatacept and tocilizumab. Persons without specialized care received considerably less DMARD therapy (Table 1). Nintedanib was prescribed to 14 patients, pirfenidon to 10 patients, all of them were in specialist care.

Table 1.

Demographics and treatment of persons with RA and ILD diagnosis, numbers are percentages unless indicated otherwise.

VariableNot treated by rheumatologist or pulmonologistTreated by rheumatologist and/or pulmonologistAllN (%)326 (20%)1274 (80%)1,600 (100%)Age, mean years (std)75 (10)72 (10)72 (10)<70 years35434170 to 80 years313937>80 years351822Female sex676968Glucocorticoids497267csDMARDs245649MTX133027Leflunomide4.9108.9(Hydroxy-)chloroquine2.89.07.8Mycophenolate1.22.22.0Sulfasalazine2.13.83.4bDMARDs72219TNF-alpha Inhibitors3.49.07.9Abatacept2.15.64.9Tocilizumab1.23.63.1Rituximab0.92.92.5Tofacitinib1.51.91.8

Conclusion:

ILD was diagnosed in one of 100 persons with RA diagnosis. Specialist care is necessary to provide disease-specific therapies. While methotrexate is the most commonly used DMARD, the bDMARD prescription is heterogeneous.

References:

[1]Hyldgaard C, Ellingsen T, Hilberg O, Bendstrup E. Rheumatoid Arthritis-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease: Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of Mortality. Respiration. 2019;98(5):455-460.

Acknowledgements:

The study was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the network TARISMA [01EC1902A].

Disclosure of Interests:

Katinka Albrecht: None declared, Anja Strangfeld: None declared, Ursula Marschall Employee of: Employee of the BARMER statutory health insurance fund, Johanna Callhoff: None declared

OP0105 FEASIBILITY AND USEFULNESS OF MAPPING BIOLOGIC REGISTRIES TO A COMMON DATA MODEL: ILLUSTRATION USING COMORBIDITIES

Background:

The Observational and Medical Outcomes Partnerships (OMOP) common data model (CDM) provides a framework for standardising health data with a view towards federated analyses, thus maximising the use and power of combining disparate datasets.

Objectives:

To assess feasibility and usefulness of mapping biologic registry data from different European countries to the OMOP CDM and present initial descriptive data regarding comorbidities.

Methods:

Five biologic registries, as part of a funded FOREUM project, have been mapped to the OMOP CDM: 1) the Czech biologics register (ATTRA), 2) Registro Español de Acontecimientos Adversos de Terapias Biológicas en Enfermedades Reumáticas (BIOBADASER), 3) British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), 4) German biologics register ‘Rheumatoid arthritis observation of biologic therapy’ (RABBIT), and 5) Swiss register ‘Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatic Diseases’ (SCQM). The mapping includes socio-demographic, observation period within the studies, baseline comorbidities, and baseline medications. Only patients with RA were included. Using R, registers received identical scripts to run on their mapped databases to produce an initial description of patient characteristics without the need to share patient-level data.

Results:

A total of 54,458 individuals are included the five registries being mapped to the OMOP CDM, see table. Age and gender distribution was similar across registries. All registers reported on cardiovascular system comorbidities, diabetes mellitus, mental disorders, and respiratory system comorbidities. However, it was noted that results of comorbidity mapping relies on what each register collect on each patient at the point of registration.

Whilst the Charlson comorbidity index could be calculated within each registry, due to lack of the specific coding needed, such as “uncomplicated diabetes mellitus” / “end-organ damage diabetes mellitus”, it was felt to be an inaccurate measure. The granularity of the comorbidities was insufficient, as many registers coded, for example, diabetes mellitus without any extra information.

Table 1.

OARSI scores

RegistryATTRABIOBADASERBSRBR-RARABBITSCQMCountryCzechiaSpainUnited KingdomGermanySwitzerlandNumber of Participants23343012251791365210281Gender FemaleMale1808 (77%)526 (23%)2372 (79%)640 (21%)18995 (75%)6184 (25%)10191 (75%)3461 (25%)7584 (74%)2697 (26%)Age at observation start date59 (52, 66)56 (47, 63)58 (49, 66)58 (50, 67)57 (47, 66)First observation start dateFeb-2002Oct-1999Oct-2001Aug-2006March-1995Number of comorbidities1 (1, 2)1 (0, 2)1 (0, 2)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 4)Disorder of cardiovascular system1609 (69%)208 (7%)2239 (9%)6330 (46%)3969 (39%)Diabetes mellitus331 (14%)273 (9%)1770 (7%)1591 (12%)792 (8%)Depressive Disorder165 (7%)04971 (20%)1023 (7%)1337 (13%)Disorder of respiratory system215 (9%)209 (7%)4125 (16%)1282 (9%)1630 (16%)

Conclusion:

This is the first analysis of data from the newly mapped OMOP CDM across five European registers. Through mapping the registers into a CDM, and using the same script, the ability to undertake collaborative analysis without sharing patient level data outside of the country can be realised. Due to differences in study design and data capture, there needs to be a focus on harmonising the coding and analysing of the comorbidities and drugs across registries.

Disclosure of Interests:

Lianne Kearsley-Fleet: None declared, Kimme Hyrich: None declared, Martin Schaefer: None declared, Doreen Huschek: None declared, Anja Strangfeld: None declared, Jakub Zavada Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, UCB, Sanofi., Consultant of: Abbvie, UCB, Sanofi, Gilead., Markéta Lagová: None declared, Delphine Courvoisier Speakers bureau: Medtalks Switzerland, Christoph Tellenbach: None declared, Kim Lauper Speakers bureau: Medtalks Switzerland, Carlos Sánchez-Piedra: None declared, Nuria Montero: None declared, Jesús-Tomás Sánchez-Costa: None declared, Daniel Prieto-Alhambra Consultant of: Amgen (speaker fees and advisory board membership fees paid to DPA’s department) and UCB (consultancy fees paid to DPA’s department), Grant/research support from: grants and other from AMGEN, grants, non-financial support and other from UCB Biopharma, grants from Les Laboratoires Servier, outside the submitted work., Edward Burn: None declared

OP0006 ASSOCIATIONS OF BASELINE USE OF BIOLOGIC OR TARGETED SYNTHETIC DMARDS WITH COVID-19 SEVERITY IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM THE COVID-19 GLOBAL RHEUMATOLOGY ALLIANCE

Background:

Targeted DMARDs may dampen the inflammatory response in COVID-19, perhaps leading to a less severe clinical course. However, some DMARD targets may impair viral immune defenses. Due to sample size limitations, previous studies of DMARD use and COVID-19 outcomes have combined several heterogeneous rheumatic diseases and medications, investigating a single outcome (e.g., hospitalization).

Objectives:

To investigate the associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs with a range of poor COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods:

We analyzed voluntarily reported cases of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases in the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (March 12, 2020 - January 6, 2021). We investigated RA treated with b/tsDMARD at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL6i), or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). The outcome was an ordinal scale (1-4) for COVID-19 severity: 1) no hospitalization, 2) hospitalization without oxygen need, 3) hospitalization with any oxygen need or ventilation, or 4) death. Baseline covariates including age, sex, smoking, obesity, comorbidities (e.g., cardiovascular disease, cancer, interstitial lung disease [ILD]), concomitant non-biologic DMARD use, glucocorticoid use/dose, RA disease activity, country, and calendar time were used to estimate propensity scores (PS) for b/tsDMARD. The primary analysis used PS matching to compare each drug class to TNFi. Ordinal logistic regression estimated ORs for the COVID-19 severity outcome. In a sensitivity analysis, we used traditional multivariable ordinal logistic regression adjusting for covariates without matching.

Results:

Of the 1,673 patients with RA on b/tsDMARDs at the onset of COVID-19, (mean age 56.7 years, 79.6% female) there were n=154 on ABA, n=224 on RTX, n=306 on JAK, n=180 on IL6i, and n=809 on TNFi. Overall, 498 (34.3%) were hospitalized and 112 (6.7%) died. Among all patients, 353 (25.3%) were ever smokers, 197 (11.8%) were obese, 462 (27.6%) were on glucocorticoids, 1,002 (59.8%) were on concomitant DMARDs, and 299 (21.7%) had moderate/high RA disease activity. RTX users were more likely than TNFi users to have ILD (11.6% vs. 1.7%) and history of cancer (7.1% vs. 2.0%); JAK users were more likely than TNFi users to be obese (17.3% vs. 9.0%). After propensity score matching, RTX was strongly associated with greater odds of having a worse outcome compared to TNFi (OR 3.80, 95% CI 2.47, 5.85; Figure). Among RTX users, 42 (18.8%) died compared to 27 (3.3%) of TNFi users (Table). JAK use was also associated with greater odds of having a worse COVID-19 severity (OR 1.52, 95%CI 1.02, 2.28). ABA or IL6i use were not associated with COVID-19 severity compared to TNFi. Results were similar in the sensitivity analysis and after excluding cancer or ILD.

Table 1.

Frequencies for the ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome for patients with RA on biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (n=1673).

COVID-19 outcomes by severity scale (n,%)ABAn=154RTXn=224JAKn=306IL6in=180TNFi n=8091)Not hospitalized113 (73.3%)121 (54.0%)220 (71.9%)150 (83.3%)666 (82.3%)2)Hospitalization without oxygenation10 (6.5%)14 (6.2%)11 (3.6%)9 (5.0%)53 (6.5%)3)Hospitalization with any oxygenation or ventilation16 (10.4%)47 (21.0%)52 (17.0%)16 (8.9%)63 (7.8%)4)Death15 (9.7%)42 (18.8%)23 (7.5%)5 (2.8%)27 (3.3%)

Conclusion:

In this large global registry of patients with RA and COVID-19, baseline use of RTX or JAK was associated with worse severity of COVID-19 compared to TNFi use. The very elevated odds for poor COVID-19 outcomes in RTX users highlights the urgent need for risk-mitigation strategies, such as the optimal timing of vaccination. The novel association of JAK with poor COVID-19 outcomes requires replication.

Acknowledgements:

The views expressed here are those of the authors and participating members of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance and do not necessarily represent the views of the ACR, EULAR, the UK National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research, the UK Department of Health, or any other organization.

Disclosure of Interests:

Jeffrey Sparks Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen, and Optum, unrelated to this work, Grant/research support from: Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb, unrelated to this work, Zachary Wallace Consultant of: Viela Bio and MedPace, outside the submitted work., Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi, Andrea Seet: None declared, Milena Gianfrancesco: None declared, Zara Izadi: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Speakers bureau: Abbvie unrelated to this study, Grant/research support from: BMS, UCB, and Pfizer, all unrelated to this study, Anja Strangfeld Paid instructor for: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, outside the submitted work, Grant/research support from: grants from a consortium of 13 companies (among them AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Lilly, Mylan, Hexal, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB) supporting the German RABBIT register, outside the submitted work, Laure Gossec Consultant of: Abbvie, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, unrelated to this study, Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, all unrelated to this study, Loreto Carmona: None declared, Elsa Mateus Grant/research support from: grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal S.A., MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharmakern, GAfPA; grants and non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work, Saskia Lawson-Tovey: None declared, Laura Trupin: None declared, Stephanie Rush: None declared, Gabriela Schmajuk: None declared, Patti Katz: None declared, Lindsay Jacobsohn: None declared, Samar Al Emadi: None declared, Leanna Wise: None declared, Emily Gilbert: None declared, Ali Duarte-Garcia: None declared, Maria Valenzuela-Almada: None declared, Tiffany Hsu: None declared, Kristin D’Silva: None declared, Naomi Serling-Boyd: None declared, Philippe Dieudé Consultant of: Boerhinger Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Sanofi, Pfizer, Chugai, Roche, Janssen unrelated to this work, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugaii, Pfizer, unrelated to this work, Elena Nikiphorou: None declared, Vanessa Kronzer: None declared, Namrata Singh: None declared, Manuel F. Ugarte-Gil Grant/research support from: Janssen and Pfizer, Beth Wallace: None declared, Akpabio Akpabio: None declared, Ranjeny Thomas: None declared, Suleman Bhana Consultant of: AbbVie, Horizon, Novartis, and Pfizer (all <$10,000) unrelated to this work, Wendy Costello: None declared, Rebecca Grainger Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Cornerstones, Jonathan Hausmann Consultant of: Novartis, Sobi, Biogen, all unrelated to this work (<$10,000), Jean Liew Grant/research support from: Yes, I have received research funding from Pfizer outside the submitted work., Emily Sirotich Grant/research support from: Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient run, volunteer based organization whose activities are largely supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies, Paul Sufka: None declared, Philip Robinson Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB (all < $10,000), Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB (all < $10,000), Pedro Machado Speakers bureau: Yes, I have received consulting/speaker’s fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study (all < $10,000)., Consultant of: Yes, I have received consulting/speaker’s fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study (all < $10,000)., Jinoos Yazdany Consultant of: Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca unrelated to this project

OP0116 ELDERLY PATIENTS ARE NOT AT INCREASED RISK OF SERIOUS INFECTIONS WHEN RECEIVING BDMARDS OR JAK INHIBITORS COMPARED TO CSDMARD TREATMENT

Background:

Elderly rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients are generally at increased risk of serious infections (SI). At the same time, treatment with bDMARDs has been associated with a higher SI risk than treatment with csDMARDs (1). However, long-term use of bDMARDs did not increase the risk of SI in a small group of elderly patients over 65 (2). The extent to which elderly patients are exposed to a higher SI risk when treated with JAK inhibitors (JAKi) is an open question.

Objectives:

To assess the effects of bDMARDs and specifically JAKi on the risk of SI in elderly patients with RA.

Methods:

The German register RABBIT is a prospective, longitudinally followed cohort of RA patients enrolled with a new start of a DMARD after at least one csDMARD failure. This analysis comprises patients over 70 years of age who were enrolled between 01/2007 and 04/2020 and had at least one follow-up.

Results:

Of 13,491 patients followed-up in RABBIT, 2274 with an age > 70 years were included in the analysis. 626 SI were observed in 425 of these patients. Baseline characteristics at start of the respective DMARD are shown in Table 1. In most characteristics, patients on JAKi were more comparable to patients under bDMARDs than to those on csDMARDs. JAKi patients received glucocorticoids (GC) less frequently than patients on other treatments. The HR for SI was lower than 1 in patients receiving bDMARDs or JAKi compared to csDMARDs, but without statistical significance (Figure 1). GC use (HR 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2 – 2.2 for ≤ 10 mg/d), higher DAS28-ESR values (HR 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0 – 1.2 per 1 point increase), COPD or pulmonary fibrosis (HR 1. 8, 95% CI: 1.3 – 2.4), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2 – 1.9) and diabetes mellitus (HR 1.3, 95% CI: 1.0 – 1.7) were associated with an increased risk of SI. Better physical capacity was associated with a decreased risk of SI (HR 0.9, 95% CI: 0.88 – 0.98 for a 10 point increase).

Table 1.

Patient characteristics by treatment at baseline

ParametercsDMARDsTNFiRTXABAIL-6iJAKiN=758N=840N=209N=147N=212N=108Age (years)75.9 (3.9)75.5 (3.6)74.8 (3.6)76.1 (3.9)75.9 (3.7)76.7 (3.7)Male sex184 (24.3)220 (26.2)50 (23.9)36 (24.5)46 (21.7)28 (25.9)Ever smoker249 (32.8)287 (34.2)77 (36.8)50 (34)73 (34.4)39 (36.1)Disease duration (years)7.9 (8.8)12.3 (11.4)17 (11.1)12.8 (10)13.8 (11.7)11.9 (10.9)Seropositivity487 (64.3)671 (79.9)201 (96.2)126 (85.4)182 (85.8)79 (73.5)Number of previous DMARDs1.4 (0.7)2.5 (1.3)4.2 (1.8)3.6 (1.9)3.3 (1.8)2.6 (1.5)DAS28-ESR4.6 (1.2)5.1 (1.2)5.4 (1.3)5.3 (1.3)5.3 (1.3)5 (1.2)Proportion of full physical function64.8 (23.1)57.1 (23.6)50.4 (23.7)52.9 (23.5)55.3 (24.1)55.2 (23.7)Number of comorbidities3.1 (2.5)3.8 (2.6)4.2 (2.6)4.6 (2.9)3.6 (2.4)3.8 (2.2)No comorbidity52 (6.9)29 (3.5)4 (1.9)4 (2.7)9 (4.2)5 (4.6)Three and more comorbidities385 (50.8)528 (62.9)147 (70.3)107 (72.8)131 (61.8)76 (70.4)COPD or pulmonary fibrosis69 (9.1)89 (10.6)29 (13.9)26 (17.7)12 (5.7)11 (10.2)Chronic kidney disease94 (12.4)151 (18)28 (13.4)21 (14.3)39 (18.4)22 (20.4)Diabetes mellitus151 (19.9)172 (20.5)31 (14.8)23 (15.6)42 (19.8)25 (23.1)GCs (last 6 months)347 (45.8)526 (62.6)143 (68.8)82 (56.2)127 (59.9)44 (40.7)GCs (<5mg)447 (58.9)384 (45.7)101 (48.2)88 (60)118 (55.8)72 (66.7)GCs (5-9mg)252 (33.3)375 (44.6)81 (38.7)43 (29)72 (34.2)27 (25.1)GCs (>=10mg)59 (7.8)82 (9.8)274 (13.1)16 (11)21 (10)9 (8.2)

Results are presented as mean ± SD for continuous variables and number (percentage) for discrete variables.

Figure 1.

Hazard ratios for serious infections with 95% confidence intervals

Conclusion:

Treatment with JAKi as well as treatment with bDMARDs was not associated with an increased risk of SI in elderly patients above 70 years of age. Key comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, chronic pulmonary and kidney diseases were associated with increased risk, as was concomitant GC use and higher disease activity.

References:

[1] Listing J et al., Rheumatology 2013; 52 (1): 53-61.

[2] Kawashima H. et al., Rheum. Intern. 2017; 37: 369-376.

Acknowledgements:

RABBIT is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Gilead, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, and Viatris.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

LB0002 COVID-19 VACCINE SAFETY IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE

Background:

The consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak are unprecedented and have been felt by everyone around the world, including people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). With the development of vaccines, the future is becoming brighter. Vaccines are a key pillar of public health and have been proven to prevent many serious diseases. However, vaccination also raises questions, especially for patients with inflammatory RMDs and/or treated with drugs that influence their immune system.

Objectives:

Our aim was to collect safety data among RMD patients receiving COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods:

The EULAR COVID-19 Vaccination (COVAX) Registry is an observational registry launched on 5 February 2021. Data are entered voluntarily by clinicians or associated healthcare staff; patients are eligible for inclusion if they have an RMD and have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Descriptive statistics are presented.

Results:

As of 27 April 2021, 1519 patients were reported to the registry. The majority were female (68%) and above the age of 60 (57%). Mean age was 63 years (SD 16), ranging from 15 to 97 years. A total of 28 countries contributed to the registry, with France (60%) and Italy (13%) as the highest contributors. The majority (91%) had inflammatory RMDs. Inflammatory joint diseases accounted for 51% of cases, connective tissue diseases 19%, vasculitis 16%, other immune mediated inflammatory diseases 4%, and non-inflammatory/mechanical RMDs 9%. The most frequent individual diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (30%), axial spondyloarthritis (8%), psoriatic arthritis (8%), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, 7%) and polymyalgia rheumatica (6%). At the time of vaccination, 45% were taking conventional synthetic DMARDs, 36% biological DMARDs, 31% systemic glucocorticoids, 6% other immunosuppressants (azathioprine; mycophenolate; cyclosporine; cyclophosphamide; tacrolimus), and 3% targeted synthetic DMARDs. The most frequent individual DMARDs were methotrexate (29%), TNF-inhibitors (18%), antimalarials (10%) and rituximab (6%). The vaccines administered were: 78% Pfizer, 16% AstraZeneca, 5% Moderna and 1% other/unknown; 66% of cases received two doses and 34% one dose. Mean time from 1st and 2nd dose to case report was 41 days (SD 26) and 26 days (SD 23), respectively. COVID-19 diagnosis after vaccination was reported in 1% (18/1519) of cases. Mean time from first vaccination until COVID-19 diagnosis was 24 days (SD 17). Disease flares were reported by 5% (73/1375) of patients with inflammatory RMDs, with 1.2% (17/1375) classified as severe flares. Mean time from closest vaccination date to inflammatory RMD flare was 5 days (SD 5). The most common flare types were arthritis (35/1375=2.5%), arthralgia (29/1375=2.1%), cutaneous flare (11/1375=0.8%) and increase in fatigue (11/1375=0.8%). Potential vaccine side effects were reported by 31% of patients (467/1519). The majority were typical early adverse events within 7 days of vaccination, namely pain at the site of injection (281/1519=19%), fatigue (171/1519=11%) and headache (103/1519=7%). Organ/system adverse events were reported by 2% (33/1519) but only 0.1% (2/1519) reported severe adverse events, namely a case of hemiparesis in a patient with systemic sclerosis/SLE overlap syndrome (ongoing at the time of reporting), and a case of giant cell arteritis in a patient with osteoarthritis (recovered/resolved without sequelae).

Conclusion:

The safety profiles for COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients was reassuring. Most adverse events were the same as in the general population, they were non-serious and involved short term local and systemic symptoms. The overwhelming majority of patients tolerated their vaccination well with rare reports of inflammatory RMD flare (5%; 1.2% severe) and very rare reports of severe adverse events (0.1%). These initial findings should provide reassurance to rheumatologists and vaccine recipients, and promote confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety in RMD patients, namely those with inflammatory RMDs and/or taking treatments that influence their immune system.

Acknowledgements:

EULAR COVID-19 Task Force; European Reference Network on rare and Complex Connective Tissue and Musculoskeletal Diseases; European Reference Network on Rare Immunodeficiency, Autoinflammatory and Autoimmune Diseases Network; all rheumatologists contributing to the EULAR COVAX Registry.

Disclosure of Interests:

Pedro M Machado Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this manuscript., Grant/research support from: Orphazyme, unrelated to this manuscript., Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this manuscript., Saskia Lawson-Tovey: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Grant/research support from: BMS, UCB, and Pfizer, all unrelated to this manuscript., Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Loreto Carmona Consultant of: her institute works by contract for laboratories among other institutions, such as Abbvie Spain, Eisai, Gebro Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Roche Farma, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Pharma, Actelion Pharmaceuticals España, Grünenthal GmbH, and UCB Pharma, all unrelated to this manuscript., Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, all unrelated to this manuscript., Speakers bureau: Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Galapagos, all unrelated to this manuscript., Elsa Mateus Grant/research support from: LPCDR received support for specific activities: grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal S.A., MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharmakern, GAfPA; grants and non-financial support from Pfizer; non-financial support from Grünenthal GmbH, outside the submitted work., Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS, and Pfizer, all unrelated with this manuscript., BERND RAFFEINER: None declared, Tiphaine Goulenok: None declared, Olilvier Brocq: None declared, Martina Cornalba: None declared, José A Gómez-Puerta Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Roche and Sanofi., Eric Veillard: None declared, Ludovic Trefond: None declared, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg: None declared, Julien Henry: None declared, Patrick Durez: None declared, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester: None declared, Marta Mosca: None declared, Eric Hachulla: None declared, Hans Bijlsma: None declared, Iain McInnes: None declared, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, and grant from Ose, all unrelated to this manuscript.

[Perspectives for rheumatological health services research at the German Rheumatism Research Center]

In diesem Übersichtsartikel werden aktuelle Projekte und Perspektiven der rheumatologischen Versorgungsforschung am Programmbereich Epidemiologie des DRFZ (Deutsches Rheuma-Forschungszentrum) zusammengefasst. Versorgungsforschung wird mithilfe verschiedener Datenquellen betrieben. Neben den klassischen rheumatologischen Krankheitsregistern werden zunehmend auch Krankenkassendaten und bevölkerungsbezogene Kohorten für Analysen verwendet. Von der Datenerfassung über das Monitoring bis zu Analysealgorithmen verändern digitale Anwendungen die Versorgungsforschung der nächsten Jahre. Kollaborative Analysen mit nationalen und internationalen Kooperationspartnern unter Einbindung von Biomarkern komplettieren die Forschung am Programmbereich Epidemiologie. Die Digitalisierung der Forschungsprojekte ist ein zentraler Baustein, der die Versorgungsforschung im kommenden Jahrzehnt weiter verändern wird.

[Register and cohort studies : Overview of the most important data sources at the German Rheumatism Research Center]

Over the past 28 years the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin has initiated various epidemiological studies in which data on patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are collected nationwide and multicentric. The spectrum ranges from rheumatoid arthritis and spondylarthritis to connective tissue diseases and rheumatic diseases in childhood. Based on the respective scientific question, studies of different types were established. The German National Databases for adults and children annually collect cross-sectional data to map the care of patients. In two inception cohorts, adults with early arthritis and patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis are investigated from disease onset. The long-term observational cohorts/registries RABBIT, RABBIT-SpA and JuMBO focus on the long-term efficacy and safety of biologic drugs and other targeted treatments. Rhekiss investigates women with inflammatory rheumatic diseases when trying to become pregnant, during pregnancy and postpartum. This article highlights each of these observational studies with its characteristics as well as national and international collaborations.

OP0231 COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF JAK-INHIBITORS, TNF-INHIBITORS, ABATACEPT AND IL-6 INHIBITORS IN AN INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION OF REGISTERS OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS (THE “JAK-POT” STUDY)

Background:

In many countries, JAK-inhibitors (JAKi) have only recently been approved as treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Objectives:

To evaluate the effectiveness of JAKi compared to bDMARDs in RA patients in the real-world population in an international collaboration of registers (the “JAK-pot” collaboration).

Methods:

Patients initiating either JAKi, TNFi, IL-6i or abatacept (ABA) during a time period when JAKi were available in each country (19 registers, Table) were included. We compared the effectiveness of JAKi and bDMARDs in terms of retention using crude and adjusted survival analysis. Missing covariates were imputed using multiple imputation.

Results:

Among 25521 included patients, 6063 initiated a JAKi, 13879 a TNFi, 2348 ABA, and 3231 an IL-6i. Patients were on average 55 years old, with a mean disease duration 10 years, mostly seropositive (67%), female (77%) and with moderate disease activity at treatment initiation. The main reason of stopping treatment was ineffectiveness (49%), followed by adverse events (21%). Patients on JAKi were treated more often as monotherapy, had higher CRP and disease activity at baseline and had experienced more previous ts/bDMARDs. Crude median retention was 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.5) years for JAKi, 1.6 (1.6-1.7) for TNFi, 1.5 (1.3-1.7) for IL6i and 1.1 (1.0-1.3) for ABA. After adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for discontinuation tended to be lower for JAKi (HR 0.86 (0.65-1.13)) compared to TNFi, but comparable for ABA (1.02 (0.94-1.10)) and IL6i (0.99 (0.88-1.10)) (Figure 1). HRs differed notably between countries (Figure 2).

Table 1.

Registers

Country, registerNJAKi, n (%)Austria, BIOREG*Belgium, TARDIS62882113 (33.6)Canada, RHUMADATA528114 (21.6)Czech Republic, ATTRA374253 (67.6)Denmark, DANBIO4721506 (10.7)Finland, ROB-FIN807234 (29.0)Germany, RABBIT*Italy, GISEA757250 (33.0)Israel, I-RECORD40094 (23.5)Netherlands, METEOR16424 (0.2)Norway, NOR-DMARD50799 (19.5)Portugal, REUMA.PT79744 (5.5)Romania, RRBR593328 (55.3)Russia, ARBITER526483 (91.8)Slovenia, BIORX.SI583146 (25.0)Spain, BIOBADASER781139 (17.8)Switzerland, SCQM2956796 (26.9)Turkey, TURKBIO2150397 (18.5)UK, BSRBR111163 (5.7)

*Registers planning to participate in future studies but not included yet

Conclusion:

The adjusted overall drug retention of JAKi tended to be higher than for TNFi, with large variation between countries. Other measures of effectiveness, such as the evaluation of CDAI remission and low disease activity are planned to shape a more comprehensive picture of JAKi effectiveness in the real world.

Disclosure of Interests:

Kim Lauper: None declared, Denis Mongin: None declared, Sytske Anne Bergstra: None declared, Denis Choquette Grant/research support from: Rhumadata is supported by grants from Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Consultant of: Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Catalin Codreanu Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Accord Healthcare, Alfasigma, Egis, Eli Lilly, Ewopharma, Genesis, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Accord Healthcare, Alfasigma, Egis, Eli Lilly, Ewopharma, Genesis, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Diederik De Cock: None declared, Lene Dreyer: None declared, Ori Elkayam Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Jansen, Kimme Hyrich Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Florenzo Iannone Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Nevsun Inanc: None declared, Eirik kristianslund: None declared, Tore K. Kvien Grant/research support from: Received grants from Abbvie, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD and Roche (not relevant for this abstract)., Consultant of: Have received personal fees from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lily, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Sanofi and Mylan (not relevant for this abstract)., Paid instructor for: Have received personal fees from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lily, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Sanofi and Mylan (not relevant for this abstract)., Speakers bureau: Have received personal fees from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lily, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Sanofi and Mylan (not relevant for this abstract)., Burkhard Leeb Grant/research support from: chairman of BioReg, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Grünenthal, Gebro,, Paid instructor for: Lilly, Biogen, Speakers bureau: Biogen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grünenthal, Astropharma,, Galina Lukina Speakers bureau: Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Abbvie, Biocad, MSD, Roche, Dan Nordström Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., Karel Pavelka Consultant of: Abbvie, MSD, BMS, Egis, Roche, UCB, Medac, Pfizer, Biogen, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, MSD, BMS, Egis, Roche, UCB, Medac, Pfizer, Biogen, Manuel Pombo-Suarez Consultant of: Janssen, Lilly, MSD and Sanofi., Speakers bureau: Janssen, Lilly, MSD and Sanofi., Ziga Rotar Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Maria Jose Santos Speakers bureau: Novartis and Pfizer, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Delphine Courvoisier: None declared, Axel Finckh Grant/research support from: Pfizer: Unrestricted research grant, Eli-Lilly: Unrestricted research grant, Consultant of: Sanofi, AB2BIO, Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific

OP0012 TNF INHIBITORS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A REDUCED RISK OF VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM COMPARED TO CSDMARDS IN RA PATIENTS

Background:

While the short-term use of bDMARDs up to 180 days has been associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to csDMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the long term use of more than 730 days has been associated with a decreased risk based on claims data [1]. Among patients with inflammatory bowel disease, observational data indicated that TNF inhibitors may have a protective effect regarding the VTE risk [2].

Objectives:

To assess the effects of TNF inhibitors and newer bDMARDs (including abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab) on the VTE risk based on observational data from RA patients.

Methods:

The German register RABBIT is a prospective longitudinally followed cohort of RA patients enrolled with a new start of a DMARD after at least one csDMARD failure. This analysis comprises patients who were enrolled with start of a bDMARD between 01/2009 and 04/2019 and had at least one follow-up.

Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for VTEs, for csDMARDs, TNF inhibitors and other bDMARDs. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for confounding by indication.

Results:

Patients receiving TNF inhibitors or other bDMARDs on average had higher CRP levels and a higher prevalence of cardiovascular diseases at baseline than patients receiving csDMARDs. They also received more often glucocorticoids (Table 1).

The HR of patients receiving TNF inhibitors for a serious VTE event was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.33 – 0.86) compared to csDMARDs, while the HR for patients receiving other bDMARDs was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.40 – 1.09). A CRP level of more than 5 mg/L (HR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.39 – 3.14) and an age above 65 years (HR 2.96, 95% CI: 1.94 – 4.52) increased the risk for a serious VTE event. Better physical function was associated with a decreased risk for VTEs (Table 2).

Table 1.

Patient characteristics at baseline for DMARD groups

Parameter (at time of event/end of observation unless specified otherwise)Hazard ratio95% confidence intervalTNF inhibitors (reference: csDMARDs)0.530.330.86Other bDMARDs (reference: csDMARDs)0.660.401.09Age ≥ 65 years (baseline)2.961.944.52CRP ≥ 5 ml2.091.393.14> 5 mg and ≤ 10 mg glucocorticoids/day1.040.551.98> 10 mg and ≤ 15 mg glucocorticoids/day2.350.816.79> 15 mg glucocorticoids/day2.030.765.41% of full physical capacity (per 10 percentage points increase, time of event)0.850.780.92Current smoking (baseline)0.980.611.55Former smoking (baseline)0.800.451.43Table 2.

Hazard ratios for VTE events

ParametercsDMARDsTNFiOther bDMARDsN350050602534VTE event38 (1.1)55 (1.1)23 (0.9)Age [years]58.8 (12.6)56.5 (12.9)58.1 (12.4)Female sex2575 (73.6)3734 (73.8)1933 (76.3)Disease duration [years]6.2 (7.2)9.4 (8.6)11.9 (9.2)Seropositivity2189 (62.6)3739 (73.9)2048 (80.8)Joint erosions1024 (31.0)2566 (52.4)1523 (63.3)Prior bDMARD therapies0 (0.2)0.3 (0.6)1.2 (1.2)CRP8.8 (8.1)11.6 (10.6)12.4 (11.8)DAS28-ESR4.4 (1.3)4.9 (1.2)5.1 (1.3)% of full physical capacity71.3 (21.8)66.2 (22.6)62.1 (23.5)Current glucocorticoid therapy2564 (73.3)3951 (78.1)2036 (80.4)Heart failure36 (1)113 (2.2)93 (3.7)Coronary artery disease196 (5.6)326 (6.4)183 (7.2)Cerebrovascular disease60 (1.7)86 (1.7)44 (1.7)Osteoporosis400 (11.4)771 (15.2)530 (20.9)Ever smoker1875 (53.6)2738 (54.1)1402 (55.3)

Results are presented as mean ± SD or number (percentage).

Conclusion:

Treatment with TNF inhibitors (compared to csDMARDs) and better physical function significantly reduced the risk of serious VTE events, while age above 65 years and high CRP levels increased this risk.

References:

[1]Kim S. C. et al. Am. J. Med. 2015; 128(5): 539.e7–539.e17.

[2]Desaj R.J. et al. CMAJ 2017; 189:E1438-47.

Acknowledgments:

RABBIT is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB.

Disclosure of Interests:

Martin Schaefer: None declared, Matthias Schneider Grant/research support from: GSK, UCB, Abbvie, Consultant of: Abbvie, Alexion, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Lilly, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Chugai, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Anett Graessler: None declared, Wolfgang Ochs: None declared, Angela Zink Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis

SAT0088 NO INCREASED RISK OF FALLS IN PATIENTS TREATED WITH BIOLOGICS COMPARED TO THOSE UNDER CSDMARDS

Background:

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of falling. Previous studies on causes of falls have neither sufficiently nor adequately considered the effects of bDMARDs. In addition, a risk analysis of the individual substances has been lacking until now.

Objectives:

To analyze the fall risk under exposure to TNFi’s, abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TOC) in comparison to csDMARDs taking co-medication and other risk factors such as disease activity, comorbidities and other biological risks into account.

Methods:

Data of RA patients observed in RABBIT from 01/2009 - 02/2018 with a follow-up of up to 5 years was used for the analysis. In accordance with consensus guidelines, a fall was defined as “an unexpected event in which participants come to rest on the ground, floor or other lower level” [1].

Effects of bDMARDs were examined using “inverse probability weighting“ (IPW) with time-varying treatment on a monthly basis. Directed acyclic graphs were applied to support causal considerations.

Results:

The percentage of patients with falls (2.7%) was significantly lower than the previously reported 10% and 50% [2]. This underreporting is explained by the fact that falls in RABBIT are reported by the physicians and are not recorded in patient diaries. In line with other studies, falls occurred with older age, longer disease duration, poorer physical function and higher DAS28. Patients with a higher number of comorbidities had a significantly higher risk of falling. The number of patients treated with analgesics was higher in the fall group and fallers had higher glucocorticoid doses. However, the values for pain and fatigue were comparable between the two groups (Table 1). The descriptive analysis showed that patients starting second / third line biologics therapy had a shorter duration from the initiation of treatment to the fall event than patients starting with csDMARDs. None of the regression models showed an increased risk for biologics compared to csDMARDs.

Table 1.

Characteristics at baseline in fallers and non-fallers

FallerNon- FallerN2639405Age, years62.9 (11.9)57.3 (12.6)BMI, kg/m227.4 (5.8)27.3 (5.5)Female, %79.574.2Disease duration, years10.8 (9.8)8.7 (8.5)ACPA+, %46.455.1RF+, %59.765.3DAS285 (1.3)4.8 (1.3)% of full physical function61.2 (24.2)67.3 (22.7)Joint replacement, yes %16.39.8Pain, 0 – 10 scale5.8 (2.3)5.8 (2.3)Fatigue, 0 – 10 scale5.1 (2.7)5.2 (2.7)No. of comorbidities3.4 (3)2.2 (2.2)Osteoporosis, %33.514.4Analgesics, yes %2415.8Glucocorticoid dose, mg/d6 (5.1)5.4 (6.3)

Values are means (SDs) unless otherwise specified

Conclusion:

None of the inferential analyses could demonstrate an increased risk of falling for any of the bDMARDs compared to csDMARDs. Although descriptive analyses pointed to an earlier fall event in patients treated with second-/third line biologics, these results could be explained by their particular characteristics. These patients tended to be older and were more affected by RA. This suggests that these risks override the effects of bDMARDs.

Table 2.

Results of weighted* Cox regression, Reference are csDMARDs

VariablesUnivariate HR95% CIWeighted HR95% CITNFi‘s1.12(0.85; 1.48)1.05(0.80; 1.39)ABA1.00(0.57; 1.74)0.98(0.57; 1.70)RTX1.39(0.88; 2.22)1.09(0.65; 1.81)TOC0.88(0.59; 1.33)0.77(0.50; 1.18)

*Include: age, disease duration, gender, education, joint replacement, fatigue, functional status, pain, stiffness, analgesics, no. of comorbidities, selected comorbidities

References:

[1] Lamb SE, et al. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2005;53(9):1618-22.

[2] Brenton-Rule A, et al.Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism. 2015;44(4):389-98.

Acknowledgments :

RABBIT is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB.

Disclosure of Interests:

Tatjana Rudi: None declared, Martin Schaefer: None declared, Bernhard Manger Consultant of: Lilly, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Berlin-Chemie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Sanofi-Genzyme, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SOBI, UCB, Angela Zink Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis

SAT0391 DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHER DISEASE ACTIVITY AND WORSE FUNCTIONAL STATUS IN AXSPA: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS FROM RABBIT-SPA

Background:

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a potentially severe chronic inflammatory disease with impact on function and quality of life. About 20-30% of axSpA patients show symptoms of depression or are diagnosed with depression [1]. Depression may influence outcome, especially patient reported outcomes.

Objectives:

To assess differences in baseline characteristics and outcome parameters between patients with and without symptoms of depression using WHO-5 score.

Methods:

RABBIT-SpA is a prospective longitudinal cohort study including axSpA patients enrolled at start of a new conventional treatment (including NSAID) or bDMARD. WHO-5 score was used to identify depressive symptoms categorised into 3 groups using validated cut-offs: moderate to severe depressive symptoms <=28, mild depressive symptoms 29-50, good well-being >50. Baseline values of patients categorised as having moderate to severe depressive symptoms were compared with the rest of the patients using t-test. Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated to analyse the relationship between WHO-5 score and other outcome parameters.

Results:

A total of 848 axSpA patients were included in this analysis (table 1). Moderate to severe depressive symptoms were found in 221 patients (30%), 226 (31%) had mild depressive symptoms and 285 (39%) reported a good well-being. Percentages of patients with inflammatory back pain, peripheral arthritis or enthesitis as well as the number of affected joints (44 JC) and entheseal sites (using SPARCC) were higher in the group of patients with moderate to severe depressive symptoms.

Table 1.ParameterWHO-5 (<=28)Moderate severeN=221WHO-5 (29-50/>50)Mild/well-beingN=511Age, mean43.844.1Female, n (%)100 (45.2)229 (44.8)Disease duration, years, mean6.86.5Inflammatory back pain, n (%)195 (88.6)416 (81.6)Enthesitis, n (%)49 (22.3)78 (15.4)Peripheral arthritis (44 JC), n (%)64 (29.1)134 (26.3)Uveitis, n (%)45 (20.4)76 (15)IBD, n (%)13 (5.9)31 (6.1)Psoriasis, n (%)35 (15.8)58 (11.4)CRP positive (≥5mg/l), n (%)115 (59)243 (55.1)HLA-B27, n (%)151 (72.6)354 (74.2)BMI≥30, n (%)66 (30)117 (23.6)Comorbidities ≥3, n (%)50 (22.6)89 (17.4)Current smoking, n (%)102 (47.2)185 (36.7)

All analysed outcome parameters (e.g. ASDAS, ASAS-HI, BASDAI, BASFI, patient global, physician global, pain, sleep) were significantly worse in the group of patients with moderate to severe depressive symptoms versus the other patients (table 2). This includes physician-reported, patient-reported and composite scores.

Table 2.ParameterWHO-5 (<=28)Moderate severeN=221WHO-5 (29-50/>50)Mild/well-beingN=511p-valuePhysGA (NRS 0-10)6.2 (1.6)5.4 (1.9)0.0001ASDAS6.1 (1.6)4.2 (1.8)0.0001BASDAI (NRS 0-10)3.5 (0.8)2.9 (0.9)0.0001BASFI (NRS 0-10)5.5 (2.2)3.2 (2.2)0.0001ASAS-HI (0-17)9.8 (3.1)5.8 (3.1)0.0001PatGA (NRS 0-10)7 (1.8)5.4 (2.3)0.0001PatPain (NRS 0-10)6.9 (1.9)5.2 (2.3)0.0001PatSleep (NRS 0-10)7.2 (2.4)4.6 (2.9)0.0001

Results are presented as mean ± SD.

WHO-5 was highly correlated with all outcome parameters regardless of gender. Figure 1 shows the correlation of BASDAI and WHO-5 stratified for gender.

Figure 1.

Conclusion:

Almost one third (30%) of axSpA patients in this analysis reported scores indicative of depressive symptoms and depression. The strong correlation of WHO-5 scores with patient and physician reported outcomes may be relevant for the management of patients with axSpA.

References:

[1]Redeker I, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;0:1–8. doi:10.1136

Acknowledgments:

RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

Disclosure of Interests:

Anne Regierer Speakers bureau: Novartis, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Anja Weiß: None declared, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Ilka Schwarze: None declared, Juergen Braun Grant/research support from: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Joachim Sieper Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Angela Zink Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis

FRI0558 PREGNANCY OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS – A FIRST JOINT ANALYSIS OF A EUROPEAN COLLABORATION OF PREGNANCY REGISTERS

Background:

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) can affect women in their childbearing age. But data on pregnancy in axSpA patients are mainly retrospective and highly heterogeneous [1].

Objectives:

The aim of this analysis was to investigate pregnancy outcomes and health of live born children in women with axSpA in four prospective cohort studies.

Methods:

Data of European pregnancy registries that collaborate in the European Network of Pregnancy Registries in Rheumatology (EuNeP) were analysed: EGR2 (France), RePreg (Switzerland), RevNatus (Norway) and Rhekiss (Germany). Eligible women had a diagnosis of axSpA and a pregnancy outcome reported until June-September 2019. Data were analysed descriptively by every registry and provided to the coordinating centre.

Results:

A total of 328 pregnancies in 288 women were investigated. Mean age of patients ranged from 31 to 33 years. Disease duration (3-8 years) and proportion of patients with a positive HLA-B27 (64-74%) varied (Table 1). The axSpA diagnosis was either classified by ASAS criteria (fulfilment in EGR2: 93%, RePreg: 65%, RevNatus: 86%) or by ASAS criteria for axial/ peripheral SpA (Rhekiss: 81/ 34%). Rates for preterm birth were ≤5%, and congenital malformations were reported in 4 out of 287 neonates (Table 2).

Table 1.

Maternal and disease characteristics

EGR2 (FR)RePreg (CH)RevNatus (NO)Rhekiss (DE)# Pregnancies453116092# Patients443112588Age in years32.0 ± 4.231.4 ± 4.030.5 ± 4.533.2 ± 4.4Disease duration in years6.0 ± 5.67.7 ± 4.63.2 ± 3.36.2 ± 5.3HLA-B27 positive26 (66.7)23 (74.2)79 (71.2)54 (73.0)Pre-gestational diabetes001 (0.6)1 (1.4)IBD004 (2.6)5 (7.2)Uveitis003 (1.9)3 (4.3)BMI26.5 ± 4.822.6 ± 2.524.4 ± 4.323.4 ± 4.3

Results as mean ± SD or number (percentage)

Table 2.

Pregnancy characteristics, obstetric and neonatal outcomes

EGR2 (FR)RePreg (CH)RevNatus (NO)Rhekiss (DE)WGA at 1stvisit in pregnancy11.9 ± 8.219.7 ± 9.412.9 ± 5.713.4 ± 5.4Patients with 1 pregnancy43 (95.5)31 (100.0)101 (80.8)84 (95.5)Primigravidae18 (40.0)15 (48.4)47 (29.4)37 (45.1)Adverse events of interestPreeclampsia1 (4.4)04 (2.6)0Gestational diabetes4 (8.9)2 (6.5)n.a.5 (6.2)Pregnancy outcomes(5 Outcomes missing)(1 Outcome missing)Elective termination1 (2.2)02 (1.3)0Miscarriage (< WGA 20)2 (4.4)013 (8.4)4 (4.4)Pregnancy loss >WGA 202 (4.4)000Live birth40 (88.9)31 (100.0)140 (90.3)87 (95.6)Outcomes of live births# Neonates, singleton pregn.403013978$# Neonates, multiple pregn.0224Neonatal outcomes, only singleton pregnanciesWGA at delivery39.1 ± 1.239.5 ± 1.538.9 ± 2.339.4 ± 2.0Preterm birth006 (4.3)4 (5.4)Birth weight in g3253 ± 3953314 ± 5193446 ± 5263377 ± 522Congenital malformation00n.a.#4 (5.1)

Results as mean ± SD or number (percentage). WGA: gestational age in weeks

#Malformations can be retrieved by national birth registry with a lag time of 2 years.

$Missing information for 7 infants.

Conclusion:

Differences in study design and classification criteria result in slightly different patient populations in each registry. The outcome of pregnancies was favourable. Preterm birth rates are within rates reported by the WHO for the EU general population. However, a selection bias of rather planned and well-controlled pregnancies cannot be ruled out. This is the first collaborative analysis of the EuNeP registries. Descriptive data were combined, and will be – as a next step – pooled together.

Funding: This work was supported by a research grant from FOREUM Foundation for Research in Rheumatology.

References:

[1] Giovannopoulou E et al. Curr Rheumatol Rev. 2017;13(3):162-9.

Disclosure of Interests:

Yvette Meißner Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau Grant/research support from: UCB to my institution, Frauke Förger Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grant from UCB, Consultant of: UCB, GSK, Roche, Speakers bureau: UCB, GSK, Doreen Goll: None declared, Anna Moltó Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Rebecca Özdemir: None declared, Marianne Wallenius: None declared, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Rebecca Fischer-Betz Consultant of: UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Pfizer.

AB0804 PREGNANCY AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF DISEASE ACTIVITY AND ADVERSE PREGNANCY OUTCOMES

Background:

There is little robust evidence on the course of pregnancy and its outcomes in women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) on which recommendations for the management of these patients could be based.

Objectives:

To review available data on disease activity during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with PsA.

Methods:

Systematic literature search within the databases Pubmed and Embase using the keywords ‘psoriatic arthritis’ and ‘pregnan*/ obstetr*/ matern*/ gestation*/ deliver*/ abortion*/ reproduct*/ birth/ parity’. All full text articles published until 31 Dec 2019 were systematically evaluated by 2 reviewers. All studies including at least 5 pregnant PsA patients and reporting on disease activity and/or obstetric outcomes were considered.

Results:

The review of 592 search results revealed 13 eligible publications reporting on a total of 2332 pregnancies in PsA. Nine studies reported disease activity during and after pregnancy using differing instruments (table 1). Three of them reported an increase in the proportion of women with moderate to severe activity postpartum compared to pregnancy. Another 3 studies described a worsening of the arthritis in 15-32% and in the psoriatic activity in 4-9% of patients during pregnancy and postpartum in 33-50% and 27-43% of patients, respectively.

Table 1.

Study characteristics

StudyData sourceNo. of pregnanciesDisease activity instrumentsBerman, 2018Hospital records35SynovitisBröms, 2018National registries964-Eudy, 2019Hospital records + questionnaires37Patient reported arthritis + psoriatic activityMork, 2019National registries130-Mouyis, 2017Hospital records16Physician global activityMurray, 2019Hospital cohort*18DAS28-CRP3Ostensen, 1988Hospital cohort*12Composite scorePolachek, 2017Hospital cohort*42SJC/ TJC, PASIPolachek, 2019Hospital cohort + questionnaires151Patient reported PsA activityRemaeus, 2019National registries541-Smith, 2019Cohort*117HAQ, RAPID3Strouse, 2019Claims data161-Ursin, 2019Cohort*108DAS28, BASDAI

*Prospective study

Adjusted analyses did not show an increased risk for gestational diabetes, small for gestational age (SGA) and low birth weight (LBW) in PsA patients (table 2). However, estimates for other obstetric outcomes diverged.

Table 2.

Obstetric outcomes

StudyComparator: Pregnant women without ...Repor-ted as(Pre-) EclampsiaGesta-tional diabetesElective Caesarean sectionPreterm birthSGALBWBröms... psoriasisHR1.49(1.08-2.05)1.21(0.79-1.87)1.47(1.18-1.81)1.25(0.94-1.65)0.72(0.42-1.22)1.07(0.75-1.52)Mork... SpondyloarthritisOR1.03(0.23-4.57)-1.01(0.47-2.19)1.24(0.54-2.83)1.72(0.98-3.02)-Remaeus... PsAHR1.21(0.78-1.88)1.26(0.54-2.94)1.47(1.10-1.97)1.63(1.17-2.28)1.06(0.61-1.84)-Smith... auto-immune/ other chronic diseasesRR2.22(0.98-5.04)1.41(0.70-2.87)-1.69(0.94-3.03)-1.52(0.76-3.04)Strouse... rheumatic diseasesHR---1.77(1.15-2.73)1.24(0.75-2.06)-

Abbreviation: HR, Hazard ratio; OR, Odds ratio; RR, risk ratio.

Conclusion:

Individual studies showed a trend towards increased disease activity after pregnancy in PsA patients but due to the heterogeneity of the instruments used, it is difficult to summarise the single results. No signal for specific adverse pregnancy outcomes was identified. However, a higher risk for (pre)eclampsia, elective caesarean section and preterm birth cannot be ruled out. Differences in studies (e.g. primary vs secondary data) limit statements on obstetric outcomes. Harmonization of approaches and instruments is crucial in order to enable future joint data analyses and meta-analyses. In particular, a standardised instrument for assessing disease activity of PsA that takes into account the particularities of pregnancy is needed.

Funding:

This work was supported by a research grant from FOREUM Foundation for Research in Rheumatology.

Disclosure of Interests:

Yvette Meißner Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Tatjana Rudi: None declared, Rebecca Fischer-Betz Consultant of: UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Pfizer., Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis

OP0199 POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN ANALYSING AND REPORTING COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA IN RHEUMATOLOGY

Background:

Comparing drug effectiveness in observational settings is hampered by several major threats, among them confounding and attrition bias bias (patients who stop treatment no longer contribute information, which may overestimate true drug effectiveness).

Objectives:

To present points to consider (PtC) when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness with observational data in rheumatology (EULAR-funded taskforce).

Methods:

The task force comprises 18 experts: epidemiologists, statisticians, rheumatologists, patients, and health professionals.

Results:

A systematic literature review of methods currently used for comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology and a statistical simulation study were used to inform the PtC (table). Overarching principles focused on defining treatment effectiveness and promoting robust and transparent epidemiological and statistical methods increase the trustworthiness of the results.

Points to consider

Reporting of comparative effectiveness observational studies must follow the STROBE guidelinesAuthors should prepare a statistical analysis plan in advanceTo provide a more complete picture of effectiveness, several outcomes across multiple health domains should be comparedLost to follow-up from the study sample must be reported by the exposure of interestThe proportion of patients who stop and/or change therapy over time, as well as the reasons for treatment discontinuation must be reportedCovariates should be chosen based on subject matter knowledge and model selection should be justifiedThe study baseline should be at treatment initiation and a description of how covariate measurements relate to baseline should be includedThe analysis should be based on all patients starting a treatment and not limited to patients remaining on treatment at a certain time pointWhen treatment discontinuation occurs before the time of outcome assessment, this attrition should be taken into account in the analysis.Sensitivity analyses should be undertaken to explore the influence of assumptions related to missingness, particularly in case of attrition

Conclusion:

The increased use of real-world comparative effectiveness studies makes it imperative to reduce divergent or contradictory results due to biases. Having clear recommendations for the analysis and reporting of these studies should promote agreement of observational studies, and improve studies’ trustworthiness, which may also facilitate meta-analysis of observational data.

Disclosure of Interests:

Delphine Courvoisier: None declared, Kim Lauper: None declared, Sytske Anne Bergstra: None declared, Maarten de Wit Grant/research support from: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Consultant of: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Speakers bureau: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Bruno Fautrel Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Medac MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, SOBI and UCB, Thomas Frisell: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Florenzo Iannone Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Joanna KEDRA: None declared, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ziga Rotar Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Maria Jose Santos Speakers bureau: Novartis and Pfizer, Tanja Stamm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Simon Stones Consultant of: I have been a paid consultant for Envision Pharma Group and Parexel. This does not relate to this abstract., Speakers bureau: I have been a paid speaker for Actelion and Janssen. These do not relate to this abstract., Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Axel Finckh Grant/research support from: Pfizer: Unrestricted research grant, Eli-Lilly: Unrestricted research grant, Consultant of: Sanofi, AB2BIO, Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific

FRI0306 WOMEN WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS HAVE COMPARABLE RATES OF COMPLICATIONS IN PREGNANCY TO WOMEN IN THE GENERAL POPULATION BUT MORE CAESAREAN DELIVERIES: RESULTS FROM NATIONWIDE CLAIMS DATA

Background:

In contrast to other rheumatic inflammatory diseases, studies on pregnancy outcomes in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) are scarce, despite its onset in early adulthood affecting women in their reproductive years.

Objectives:

To investigate maternal and infant pregnancy outcomes among women with axSpA compared with population-based controls.

Methods:

Taking advantage of a large health insurance dataset, comprising the period 2006 – 2018, maternal and infant pregnancy outcomes and delivery outcomes of women with axSpA were assessed and compared with population-based controls (matched by maternal age and calendar year of birth). Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using generalised estimating equation analyses.

Results:

A total of 611 singleton births among 535 women with axSpA were included in the analysis. The mean age at delivery was 32.5 years. The pharmacological treatment within 12 months prior to and after conception is illustrated in the Figure. Infants of women with axSpA were only slightly more often preterm (5.2% vs 4.7%) and small-for-gestational-age (1.6% vs 1.1%) than infants of matched population-based controls, respectively. Caesarean section was performed in 36% of deliveries among women with axSpA compared with 29.5% in population-based controls, resulting in a significantly increased risk for receiving caesarean section (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.06-1.73) (Table). The occurrence of pre-eclampsia, preterm birth, and small-for-gestational-age was moderately higher, but not significantly increased, among women with axSpA as compared to population-based controls.

Conclusion:

Women with axSpA had no significantly increased risks for adverse maternal or infant pregnancy outcomes compared to non-axSpA women. However, a significantly increased risk for receiving caesarean section and a tendency for a higher number of preterm deliveries and of small-for-gestational-age infants was observed in women with axSpA.

Table.

Acknowledgments:

We would like to thank the BARMER Statutory Health Insurance for providing data for this study.

Disclosure of Interests:

Imke Redeker: None declared, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Ursula Marschall: None declared, Angela Zink Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen

OP0020 IMPACT OF BDMARDS WITH DIFFERENT MODES OF ACTION ON FATIGUE IN RA PATIENTS

Background:

Fatigue is an important patient-reported outcome. It has been reported to be potentially targetable by DMARDs with specific modes of action, particularly IL-6 inhibition [1].

Objectives:

To assess to which extent patients on DMARDs with different modes of action reach fatigue levels of 2 or less on a 0 (no fatigue) to 10 (high fatigue) scale after 6 months of treatment.

Methods:

The German register RABBIT is a prospective longitudinally followed cohort of RA patients enrolled with a new start of a DMARD after at least one csDMARD failure. This analysis comprises bionaive patients who were enrolled with start of a b/tsDMARD between 01/2009 and 04/2019, who had at least 1 follow-up, did not switch during the first 3 months and afterwards only within the same substance, and presented fatigue levels of > 2 at baseline.

Poisson regression models with a robust error variance were used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for reaching fatigue values ≤ 2, for all DMARD modes of action. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for confounding by indication. Multiple imputation of missing values was performed.

Results:

Baseline fatigue levels were 5.1 overall and 6.1 among patients with a fatigue level of > 2 points on average. They were comparable among different DMARD modes of action. csDMARD patients had lower values than others regarding disease duration, disease activity, or joint erosions (Table 1).

Table 1.

Patient characteristics for different DMARD modes of action

ParametercsDMARDsTNFiRTXABAIL-6JAKiN23762772115166357110Fatigue at baseline5.9 (2)6.1 (2)5.9 (2)5.9 (1.9)6.1 (2)6.3 (1.9)Age [years]58.5 (12.7)56.3 (12.4)62.7 (10.9)59.7 (12.6)57.9 (12.5)61.5 (11.5)Female sex1809 (76.1)2060 (74.3)82 (71.2)118 (71)272 (76.3)79 (70.1)Disease duration [years]6.2 (7.2)8.7 (8.1)10.8 (9.7)9.8 (9.2)7.9 (7.6)8.5 (10)Joint erosions634 (28.4)1358 (50.5)62 (56.8)91 (55.4)158 (46.4)45 (41.3)Prior csDMARD therapies1.3 (0.6)2.3 (1)2.5 (1.1)2.2 (1)2.2 (0.9)1.8 (0.8)DAS28-ESR4.6 (1.2)5 (1.2)5.3 (1.3)5.3 (1.2)5.2 (1.3)4.9 (1.3)% of full physical capacity67.4 (21.6)64.6 (22)57 (23.5)59.5 (21.3)63.8 (20.9)61.6 (23)Glucocorticoid therapy (last 6 months)1161 (48.9)1747 (63)76 (66.4)93 (56)198 (55.5)42 (38.1)Fibromyalgia73 (3.1)111 (4)6 (5.2)7 (4.2)11 (3.1)1 (0.9)Depression180 (7.6)218 (7.9)10 (8.7)14 (8.4)26 (7.3)16 (14.6)Ever smoker1252 (52.7)1497 (54)68 (59)84 (50.7)200 (56)59 (53.5)

Results are presented as mean ± SD or number (percentage). Absolute numbers may be rounded due to multiple imputation.

The RR of IL-6 inhibitors for achieving a fatigue level of ≤ 2 was 1.34 (95% CI: 1.09 – 1.64) compared to csDMARDs. Among other factors, current smoking, prevalent fibromyalgia and depression had a negative impact on achieving a low fatigue level (Table 2).

Table 2.

Risk ratios for achieving fatigue levels ≤2

Parameter (at baseline)RR95% confidence intervalFatigue (1 point higher)0.83(0.80;0.86)TNF inhibitor (vs. csDMARDs)1.11(0.99;1.24)Rituximab (vs. csDMARDs)1.10(0.71;1.68)Abatacept (vs. csDMARDs)1.13(0.82;1.54)IL-6 inhibitor (vs. csDMARDs)1.34(1.09;1.64)JAK inhibitor (vs. csDMARDs)1.19(0.81;1.75)Age (5 years more)0.97(0.95;0.99)Female sex0.83(0.74;0.92)Patient global health (1 point higher)0.97(0.94;0.997)Joint erosions1.19(1.07;1.32)Current smoking0.86(0.76;0.98)Former smoking0.92(0.82;1.04)Fibromyalgia0.56(0.35;0.90)Depression0.75(0.59;0.95)

Conclusion:

Treatment with IL-6 inhibitors significantly increases the chance of reaching low fatigue levels within half a year in RA patients, while current smoking reduces it.

References:

[1]Choy E.H.S. and Calabrese L. H Rheumatology 2018;57:1885-95.

Acknowledgments:

RABBIT is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB.

Disclosure of Interests:

Martin Schaefer: None declared, Peter Herzer Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Sanofi, Janssen, Cornelia Kühne Grant/research support from: Novartis, Amgen, Roche/Chugai, Pfizer, Celgene, AbbVie, Sanofi, Herbert Kellner Grant/research support from: Biogen, Consultant of: Biogen, Speakers bureau: Biogen, Angela Zink Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis

OP0285 TOWARDS IMPLEMENTING THE OMOP CDM ACROSS FIVE EUROPEAN BIOLOGIC REGISTRIES

Background:

The Observational and Medical Outcomes Partnerships (OMOP) common data model (CDM) provides a framework for standardising health data.

Objectives:

To map national biologic registry data collected from different European countries to the OMOP CDM.

Methods:

Five biologic registries are currently being mapped to the OMOP CDM: 1) the Czech biologics register (ATTRA), 2) Registro Español de Acontecimientos Adversos de Terapias Biológicas en Enfermedades Reumáticas (BIOBADASER), 3) British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), 4) German biologics register ‘Rheumatoid arthritis observation of biologic therapy’ (RABBIT), and 5) Swiss register ’Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatic Diseases’ (SCQM).

Data collected at baseline are being mapped first. Details that uniquely identify individuals are mapped to the person table, with the observation_period table defining the time a person may have had clinical events recorded. Baseline comorbidities are mapped to the condition_occurrence CDM table, while baseline medications are mapped to the drug_exposure CDM table. This mapping is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Overview of initial mapping

Results:

A total of 64,901 individuals are included in the 5 registries being mapped to the OMOP CDM, see table 1. The number of unique baseline conditions being mapped range from 17 in BSRBR-RA to 108 in RABBIT, while the number of baseline medications range from 26 in ATTRA to 802 in BSRBR-RA. Those registries which captured more comorbidities or medications generally allowed for these to be inputted as free text.

Table 1.

Summary of initial code mapping

RegistryNumber of individualsNumber of mapped baseline conditionsNumber of mapped baseline medicationsATTRA5,3262626BIOBADASER6,4963051BSRBR-RA21,69517802RABBIT13,06210878SCQM18,3222633

Conclusion:

Due to differences in study design and data capture, the baseline information captured on comorbidities and drugs across registries varies greatly. However, these data have been mapped and mapping biologic registry data to the OMOP CDM is feasible. The adoption of the OMOP CDM will facilitate collaboration across registries and allow for multi-database studies which include data from both biologic registries and other sources of health data which have been mapped to the CDM.

Disclosure of Interests:

Edward Burn: None declared, Lianne Kearsley-Fleet: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Martin Schaefer: None declared, Doreen Huschek: None declared, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Jakub Zavada Speakers bureau: Abbvie, UCB, Sanofi, Elli-Lilly, Novartis, Zentiva, Accord, Markéta Lagová: None declared, Delphine Courvoisier: None declared, Christoph Tellenbach: None declared, Kim Lauper: None declared, Carlos Sánchez-Piedra: None declared, Nuria Montero: None declared, Jesús-Tomás Sanchez-Costa: None declared, Daniel Prieto-Alhambra Grant/research support from: Professor Prieto-Alhambra has received research Grants from AMGEN, UCB Biopharma and Les Laboratoires Servier, Consultant of: DPA’s department has received fees for consultancy services from UCB Biopharma, Speakers bureau: DPA’s department has received fees for speaker and advisory board membership services from Amgen

OP0198 A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW TO INFORM THE EULAR POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN ANALYSING AND REPORTING COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA IN RHEUMATOLOGY

Background:

Comparative effectiveness studies using observational data are increasingly used. Despite their high potential for bias, there are no detailed recommendations on how these studies should best be analysed and reported in rheumatology.

Objectives:

To conduct a systematic literature review of comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology to inform the EULAR task force developing points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research with observational data.

Methods:

All original articles comparing drug effectiveness in longitudinal observational studies of ≥100 patients published in key rheumatology journals (Scientific Citation Index > 2) between 1.01.2008 and 25.03.2019 available in Ovid MEDLINE® were included. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers for the first 1000 abstracts and independently checked to ensure sufficient agreement has been reached. The main information extracted included the types of outcomes used to assess effectiveness, and the types of analyses performed, focusing particularly on confounding and attrition.

Results:

9969 abstracts were screened, with 218 articles proceeding to full-text extraction (Figure 1), representing a number of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Agreement between the two reviewers for the first 1000 abstracts was 92.7% with a kappa of 0.6. The majority of the studies used several outcomes to evaluate effectiveness (Figure 2A). Most of the studies did not explain how they addressed missing data on the covariates (70%) (Figure 2B). When addressed (30%), 44% used complete case analysis and 10% last observation carried forward (LOCF). 25% of studies did not adjust for confounding factors and there was no clear correlation between the number of factors used to adjust and the number of participants in the studies. An important number of studies selected covariates using bivariate screening and/or stepwise selection. 86% of the studies did not acknowledge attrition (Figure 2C). When trying to correct for attrition (14%), 38% used non-responder (NR) imputation, 24% used LUNDEX1, a form of NR imputation, and 21% LOCF.

Conclusion:

Most of studies used multiple outcomes. However, the vast majority did not acknowledge missing data and attrition, and a quarter did not adjust for any confounding factors. Moreover, when attempting to account for attrition, several studies used methods which potentially increase bias (LOCF, complete case analysis, bivariate screening…). This systematic review confirms the need for the development of recommendations for the assessment and reporting of comparative drug effectiveness in observational data in rheumatology.

References:

[1]Kristensen et al. A&R. 2006 Feb;54(2):600-6.

Acknowledgments:

Support of the Standing Committee on Epidemiology and Health Services Research

Disclosure of Interests:

Kim Lauper: None declared, Joanna KEDRA: None declared, Maarten de Wit Grant/research support from: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Consultant of: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Speakers bureau: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Bruno Fautrel Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Medac MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, SOBI and UCB, Thomas Frisell: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Florenzo Iannone Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ziga Rotar Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Maria Jose Santos Speakers bureau: Novartis and Pfizer, Tanja Stamm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Simon Stones Consultant of: I have been a paid consultant for Envision Pharma Group and Parexel. This does not relate to this abstract., Speakers bureau: I have been a paid speaker for Actelion and Janssen. These do not relate to this abstract., Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Axel Finckh Grant/research support from: Pfizer: Unrestricted research grant, Eli-Lilly: Unrestricted research grant, Consultant of: Sanofi, AB2BIO, Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Sytske Anne Bergstra: None declared, Delphine Courvoisier: None declared

SAT0437 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PsA OUTCOME PARAMETERS AND THEIR CORRELATION WITH SKIN INVOLVEMENT: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OF RABBIT-SpA PAtients

Background:

PsA is a complex disease characterised by a heterogeneous pattern including different clinical symptoms of musculoskeletal (MSK) inflammation like arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis and axial involvement as well as skin and nail involvement. There are differences in these disease patterns between female and male patients which need to be taken into account.

Objectives:

To assess the differences between female and male PsA patients in the extent of psoriatic skin (body surface area, BSA) and joint (tender joint count 68, TJC68; swollen joint count 66, SJC66;) disease, composite scores (disease activity in PsA, DAPSA; disease activity score 28, DAS28), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and to correlate the extent of skin disease with PROs.

Methods:

RABBIT-SpA is a prospective longitudinal cohort study including PsA patients enrolled at start of a new csDMARD, bDMARD or tsDMARD. Gender specific differences in outcome parameters are compared using Wilcoxon resp. t-test at baseline visit. Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated to analyse the relationship between BSA and outcome parameters.

Results:

722 PsA patients were included in this analysis. Women were slightly older (52 vs 50 yrs), had longer disease duration (7 vs 5.8 yrs), more comorbidities and were more often obese. Men had a significantly higher skin involvement than women measured by BSA and physician skin assessment (physSk, table 1). Women had significantly higher joint involvement as measured by TJC68, DAPSA, DAS28, and patient muskuloskeletal assessment (patMSK). Impact of disease as measured by PSAID and patient global assessment (patGA) was more severe in women than in men and also physical function (HAQ) was lower in women than in men (table 1). Despite the higher skin involvement in men, the DLQI was equally high in women and men with more than 50% of patients in reduced quality of life state (table 1).

Table 1.ParameterFemaleN=424MaleN=298SJC663.4 (5)2.7 (3.8)TJC687.9 (8.7)5.7 (7)BSA (0-100)6.6 (13)10.8 (16.5)physGA (NRS 0-10)5.3 (1.9)5.2 (2)physSk (NRS 0-10)3.1 (2.7)3.7 (2.6)physMSK (NRS 0-10)5.2 (2.1)4.9 (2.3)DAPSA24.2 (13.8)20.1 (12.3)DAS28-CRP3.7 (1.2)3.4 (1.2)patGA (NRS 0-10)5.5 (2.1)4.9 (2)patSk (NRS 0-10)3.9 (3.1)3.9 (2.8)patMSK (NRS 0-10)5.8 (2.2)5 (2.5)DLQI (0-30)6.1 (6.8)5.3 (5.7)HAQ (0-3)1.1 (0.6)0.7 (0.6)PSAID (0-10)4.8 (2.3)3.9 (2.2)

Results are presented as mean ± SD.

BSA was not correlated with SJC66 or TJC68, DAPSA, DAS28, phys MSK, patGA and patMSK neither in men nor in women. BSA was however positive correlated with DLQI, patSk, and physSK and slightly with physGA in both genders. The PSAID is correlated to BSA in women only.

Conclusion:

Women and men show differences regarding many PsA criteria. Men have a more severe skin involvement, while women have higher burden of joint involvement. In addition in the patient reported parameters women show significantly higher values than men except for the skin specific parameters. Notably, although skin involvement is not correlated with most PsA activity parameters, around 50% of patients in specialised rheumatologic care are negatively affected in their quality of life by psoriatic skin disease. Therapeutic decisions need to take into account the complexity of the patients’ symptoms as well as gender differences.

Acknowledgments:

RABBIT-SpA is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

Disclosure of Interests:

Anne Regierer Speakers bureau: Novartis, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Anja Weiß: None declared, Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene, Lilly and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai, Martin Feuchtenberger Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Chugai, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Jansen-Cilag, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Angela Zink Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis

CO0004 OLDER AGE, CARDIOVASCULAR COMORBIDITY AND GLUCOCORTICOSTEROIDS ARE RISK FACTORS FOR COVID-19 HOSPITALISATION IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATIC DISEASES: FIRST RESULTS OF THE GERMAN COVID-19-IRD REGISTRY

Background:

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) and infection with SARS-CoV-2 may be at risk to develop a severe course of COVID-19. To gather knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 infections in IRD patients, a national registry was established to elucidate IRD specific profiles of COVID-19.

Objectives:

To identify risk factors for hospitalisation.

Methods:

Patients from the German registry on SARS-CoV-2 infection in IRD were analysed. Patients are enrolled with a pre-existing IRD and a positive lab-result for a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The main outcome parameter was hospitalisation versus non-hospitalisation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Covariates included in the model were age group, gender, key comorbidities (cardiovascular, lung diseases, chronic renal insufficiency), prior and/or current use of glucocorticosteroids (GC) or NSAIDs and remission.

Results:

Until May 17th, 2020, data from 192 IRD patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported (67 males; 124 females; 1 diverse). 64 patients were hospitalised, 21 patients were ventilated non-invasively/invasively and 15 patients died.

Baseline characteristics are shown in table 1, stratified into the patient groups non-hospitalisation, hospitalisation without ventilation, and hospitalisation with ventilation. Non-hospitalised patients were younger, had less comorbidities and were less often treated with GC. In the group of hospitalised patients compared to non-hospitalised patients more patients were male (42% vs 32% male) with an even higher proportion in the ventilated patient group (57% male).

In the multivariable logistic regression model, age>65 years (OR 5.1; 95%CI 2.3-11.4), cardiovascular comorbidity (OR 2.3; 95%CI 1.0-5.0), and prior and/or current treatment with GC (OR 2.6; 95%CI 1.2-5.4) were independently associated with hospitalisation.

Parameter, N (%)Non-hospitalisation128 (66.7)Hosp. without ventilation42 (22.4)Hosp. with ventilation21 (10.9)Age [years], mean (SD)53.8 (13.4)65.2 (15.5)69.7 (9.9)Female87 (68.5)28 (65.1)9 (42.9)RA60 (46.9)24 (55.8)12 (57.1)Psoriasis23 (18)3 (7)3 (14.3)Axial spondyloarthritis14 (10.9)2 (4.7)0Lupus7 (5.5)1 (2.3)0Remission of IRD67 (52.3)23 (53.5)4 (19)Number of comorbidities, mean (SD)1 (1.2)1.8 (1.4)2.4 (1.5)Cardiovascular disease42 (32.8)25 (58.1)16 (76.2)Pulmonary disease16 (12.5)8 (18.6)8 (38.1)Chronic renal insufficiency5 (3.9)7 (16.3)4 (19)Cancer2 (1.6)4 (9.3)2 (9.5)Obesity (BMI>30)23 (18)5 (11.6)3 (14.3)Diabetes3 (2.3)7 (16.3)4 (19)Other comorbidities20 (15.6)9 (20.9)6 (28.6)csDMARD (without HCQ)59 (46.1)25 (58.1)8 (38.1)HCQ13 (10.2)1 (2.3)2 (9.5)bDMARD48 (37.5)15 (34.9)8 (38.1)tsDMARD5 (3.9)1 (2.3)1 (4.8)Glucocorticosteroids47 (37)29 (67.4)13 (61.9)NSAIDs21 (16.4)5 (11.6)1 (4.8)

Conclusion:

As has been described for COVID-19 in general, also in IRD male gender may be associated with a more severe course of the infection as the descriptive analysis of data shows. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection-dependent hospitalisation in IRD patients include age (>65 years), cardiovascular comorbidities, and prior and/or current treatment with GC.

Disclosure of Interests:

Anne Regierer Speakers bureau: Novartis, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Rebecca Hasseli Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Pfizer, Gilead, Novartis, Celgene, Abbvie, Medac, Bimba Hoyer: None declared, Andreas Krause: None declared, Hanns-Martin Lorenz Grant/research support from: Consultancy and/or speaker fees and/or travel reimbursements: Abbvie, MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Celgene, Medac, GSK, Roche, Chugai, Novartis, UCB, Janssen-Cilag, Astra-Zeneca, Lilly. Scientific support and/or educational seminars and/or clinical studies: Abbvie, MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Celgene, Medac, GSK, Roche, Chugai, Novartis, UCB, Janssen-Cilag, Astra-Zeneca, Lilly, Baxter, SOBI, Biogen, Actelion, Bayer Vital, Shire, Octapharm, Sanofi, Hexal, Mundipharm, Thermo Fisher., Consultant of: see above, Alexander Pfeil Grant/research support from: This study Investigator Initiated Study “Automatic assessment of joint space narrowing in rheumatoid arthritis based on the Post-hoc analysis” (number: IIS-2016-110818) is a part of the of the Investigator Initiated Study “The quantification of inflammatory related periarticular bone loss in certolizumab pegol treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis” (number: IIS-2014-101458) which is supported by UCB Pharma GmbH, Monheim, Germany., Jutta Richter Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma for performing the LuLa-study., Tim Schmeiser Speakers bureau: Actelion, UCB, Pfizer, Christof Specker Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Lilly, Novartis, Sobi, UCB, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Toshiba, Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Reinhard Voll: None declared, Hendrik Schulze-Koops: None declared, Ulf Müller-Ladner Speakers bureau: Biogen

OP0238 RISK OF HERPES ZOSTER IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS UNDER BIOLOGICAL, TARGETED SYNTHETIC, AND CONVENTIONAL SYNTHETIC DMARD TREATMENT

Background:

The risk of herpes zoster (HZ) is higher in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than in the general population. This risk is further increased with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) such as tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs such as Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) compared to patients taking conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs such as methotrexate (MTX).

Objectives:

To compare incidence rates of HZ in RA patients under treatment with bDMARDs, tsDMARDs and csDMARDs with different modes of action and to find potential risk factors.

Methods:

Data of patients enrolled in the German biologics register RABBIT from 2007 onwards with the start of a bDMARD, tsDMARD or a change in csDMARD treatment were analysed. Patients were included when at least one follow-up documentation was available. All HZ events reported until 30 April 2019 were identified and assigned to treatments administered within the 3 month period prior to the HZ event. Crude incidence rates (IR) of HZ were calculated per 1,000 patient years (py). Cox regression was applied to investigate risk factors for the occurrence of HZ with and without inverse probability weights (IPW) to adjust for confounding by indication.

Results:

Data of 12,470 patients (53,218 py of observation) were included in the analysis. A total of 452 HZ cases in 433 patients were reported, of which 52 events were serious. The crude IRs per 1,000 py are illustrated by Figure. Adjusted for age, sex, and glucocorticoid use, a significantly increased risk was observed for treatment with monoclonal TNF antibodies (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55 [95% CI, 1.21-2.00]), B-cell targeted therapies (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.07-1.97]), and tsDMARDs (HR, 3.55 [95% CI, 2.33-5.41]). Treatment with soluble TNF receptors, T-cell co-stimulation modulator, and IL-6 inhibitors were not significantly associated (Table). Adjustment with IPW amplified the effect and treatment with T-cell co-stimulation modulator and IL-6 inhibitors were also significantly associated with a higher risk compared to csDMARD treatment (Table).

Conclusion:

This is the first analysis in a European prospective cohort study comparing the incidence rates and risk of HZ in RA patients under treatment with six different modes of action within one cohort to csDMARD treatment. We found a significant association between HZ and treatment with JAKi. Our results also confirm a higher risk for monoclonal TNF antibodies and show a similar result for the T-cell co-stimulation modulator and B-cell targeted therapies. This study clearly supports systematic HZ vaccination of RA patients.

Table.

Acknowledgments:

RABBIT is supported by a joint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB

Disclosure of Interests:

Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Imke Redeker: None declared, Jörn Kekow Speakers bureau: BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Consultant of: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Juergen Braun Grant/research support from: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Angela Zink Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, UCB

[Revised version of the statement by the DGRh on biosimilars-update 2017]

The treatment of rheumatic diseases with bioloics has significantly improved the prognosis of patients. Currently, there are 13 preparations available in Germany for the treatment of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. These original preparations generally have-depending on the individual country-15 years of patent protection. As soon as the patent has expired, approved biosimilars can be brought into use. For the approval of a biosimilar, authorities such as the European Medical Agency or the American Food and Drug Administration require proof of the best possible comparability with respect to efficacy and safety in comparison to the original or reference product. Since 2015, biosimilars of inifliximab, adalimumab, etanercept and rituximab have been granted approval in the European Union, the USA, Japan and in other countries. Further biosimilar products for these reference products are in development for treatment in rheumatology. From a societal and medical point of view, this opens up the possibility to increase the availability of biopharmaceutical products for patients through lower prices. In Germany, this possibility has already occurred-statutory health insurance physicians have introduced quotas for biosimilars, which will ultimately decrease spending and healthcare costs. This can lead to price reductions of the original products, which has already happened in Germany. Biosimilars can be prescribed for new patients or as a change from the original to the generic drug. When switching, a distinction is made between individual switching (interchangeability), which is made in individual consultation between the physician and the patient, and nonmedical switching (substitution) made at the societal or governmental level, which is made in the context of health care cost containment, and then, for example, implemented at the pharmacy level. Preliminary data from Norway and Denmark are available for substitution on the basis of results from large studies or registries in which systematic changes were made. The previous conclusion was that this does not lead to new problems for the patients. The German Society for Rheumatology recognizes the advantages of introducing biosimilars in Germany, but recommends that their use be based primarily on a joint decision by the treating physician and patient.

[The first biologic for rheumatoid arthritis: factors influencing the therapeutic decision]

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biologics (disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, bDMARD) have been in use in Germany for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) since 2001, usually after failure of at least one conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD. We analyzed temporal changes in factors that influence the decision for either a first bDMARD or a further csDMARD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed data from 9513 bDMARD-naive RA patients in the German biologics register RABBIT who switched to a new therapy. For three recruitment periods (2001-2003, 2004-2006 and 2009-2015) factors influencing the therapeutic decision were analyzed by means of machine learning methods and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In all recruitment periods the number of previous csDMARDs, high dosages of glucocorticoids (>7.5 mg/day) and a higher DAS28 (>5.1) were significantly associated with the decision for a first bDMARD. Over time, the chance of receiving a bDMARD increased in patients with moderate disease activity, moderate glucocorticoid dosages (5-7.5 mg/day) and those with comorbidities, such as congestive heart failure or prior malignancy. Men had a higher chance of receiving a bDMARD than women only in the first recruitment period. Private health insurance, high education and gainful employment were significantly associated with more frequent prescription of bDMARDs in all recruitment periods.

DISCUSSION

The time-dependent changes in the impact of disease activity, concomitant drugs, gender and comorbidity on the prescription of bDMARDs mirror the increasing therapeutic options and the growing experience in the application of the new substances in patients at higher risk. The influence of demographic and social factors may reflect safety concerns in patients at increased risk of adverse events but also the need to economize drug costs..

Serious adverse events and the risk of stroke in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the German RABBIT cohort

OBJECTIVE

In the general population, the incidence of stroke is increased following other serious events and hospitalisation. We investigated the impact of serious adverse events on the risk of stroke in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), taking risk factors and treatment into account.

METHODS

Using data of the German biologics register RABBIT (Rheumatoid Arthritis: Observation of Biologic Therapy) with 12354 patients with RA, incidence rates (IRs) and risk factors for stroke were investigated using multi-state and Cox proportional hazard models. In addition, in a nested case-control study, all patients with stroke were matched 1:2 to patients with identical baseline risk profile and analysed using a shared frailty model.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 166 strokes were reported. The overall IR was 3.2/1000 patient-years (PY) (95% CI 2.7 to 3.7). It was higher after a serious adverse event (IR: 9.0 (7.3 to 11.0)), particularly within 30 days after the event (IR: 94.9 (72.6 to 121.9)). The adjusted Cox model showed increased risks of age per 5 years (HR: 1.4 (1.3 to 1.5)), hyperlipoproteinaemia (HR: 1.6 (1.0 to 2.5)) and smoking (HR: 1.9 (1.3 to 2.6)). The risk decreased with better physical function (HR: 0.9 (0.8 to 0.96)). In the case-control study, 163 patients were matched to 326 controls. Major risk factors for stroke were untreated cardiovascular disease (HR: 3.3 (1.5 to 7.2)) and serious infections (HR:4.4 (1.6 to 12.5)) or other serious adverse events (HR: 2.6 (1.4 to 4.8)).

CONCLUSIONS

Incident adverse events, in particular serious infections, and insufficient treatment of cardiovascular diseases are independent drivers of the risk of stroke. Physicians should be aware that patients who experience a serious event are at increased risk of subsequent stroke.

[Safety of antirheumatic drug treatment in the elderly]

Mainly due to the general demographic changes and decreasing mortality in rheumatic diseases based on therapeutic progress, the proportion of older patients treated by rheumatologists is growing. Drug treatment in the elderly, however, harbors certain risks including age-specific pharmacokinetic features and high rates of multimorbidity and polypharmacy resulting in a risk of drug interactions and adherence problems. Nevertheless, older patients suffering from rheumatic diseases ought to be treated with the same intensity and same targets as the younger counterparts. Bearing all these facts in mind it is a balancing act for rheumatologists to find an optimal treatment for the individual elderly patient. Fear of risks should not lead to hesitant use of drugs leaving these patients alone with treatment deficits, as some studies have suggested.

Risk for lower intestinal perforations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tocilizumab in comparison to treatment with other biologic or conventional synthetic DMARDs

Objective

To investigate the risk of developing lower intestinal perforations (LIPs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tocilizumab (TCZ).

Methods

In 13 310 patients with RA observed in the German biologics register Rheumatoid Arthritis: Observation of Biologic Therapy, 141 serious gastrointestinal events possibly associated with perforations were reported until 31 October 2015. All events were validated independently by two physicians, blinded for treatment exposure.

Results

37 LIPs (32 in the colon/sigma) were observed in 53 972 patient years (PYs). Only two patients had a history of diverticulitis (one in TCZ). Age, current/cumulative glucocorticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were significantly associated with the risk of LIP. The crude incidence rate of LIP was significantly increased in TCZ (2.7/1000 PYs) as compared with all other treatments (0.2−0.6/1000 PYs). The adjusted HR (ref: conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs)) in TCZ was 4.48 (95% CI 2.0 to 10.0), in tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) 1.04 (0.5 to 2.3) and in other biologic DMARDs 0.33 (0.1 to 1.4). 4/11 patients treated with TCZ presented without typical symptoms of LIP (acute abdomen, severe pain). Only one patient had highly elevated C reactive protein (CRP). One quarter of patients died within 30 days after LIP (9/37), 5/11 under TCZ, 2/13 under TNFi and 2/11 under csDMARD treatment.

Conclusions

The incidence rates of LIP under TCZ found in this real world study are in line with those seen in randomised controlled trials of TCZ and higher than in all other DMARD treatments. To ensure safe use of TCZ in daily practice, physicians and patients should be aware that, under TCZ, LIP may occur with mild symptoms only and without CRP elevation.