Patient-reported outcomes in large vessel vasculitis: insights from a retrospective analysis of disease activity and associated factors

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play a crucial role in assessing rheumatic diseases, offering insights into disease evaluation and treatment efficacy. This study focuses on PRO assessment in large vessel vasculitides, including Takayasu Arteritis and Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed routine data from patients treated at our rheumatology clinic over a 10-year span. Patient and physician-rated global disease activity scale (G-DAS) scores, measured on a numeric rating scale (0-10 points), were collected at each visit. Clinical variables like age, sex, body mass index (BMI), disease duration, lab values, pain perception, and questionnaire responses were recorded. Linear regression and generalized additive linear regression (GAM analysis) examined associations between PROs and these factors.

RESULTS

The study included 138 patients, primarily diagnosed with GCA (94.4%). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (0-7.7). Patient and physician G-DAS exhibited a moderate correlation (Pearson R 0.19, CI 0.14-0.24, p < 0.001). Higher patient G-DAS correlated with younger age (CI -3.4 - -1.5, p < 0.001), increased pain (CI 3.5-4, p < 0.001), functional limitations (HAQ, CI 0.5-0.6, p < 0.001), reduced physical (CI 2.3-2.7, p ≤ 0.001) and psychological well-being (CI 2.1-2.5, p < 0.001), and higher BMI (CI 1.3-2.4, p < 0.001). Physician G-DAS correlated with Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (V3.0; R 0.42, p 0.046) and were significantly linked to serum CRP elevations (β = 0.04, CI 0.0-0.08, p 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings underscore the need to integrate PRO measures into vasculitis disease management strategies, enhancing the understanding of disease activity from the patient's perspective.

POS1488-HPR DETERMINANTS OF PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF DISEASE ACTIVITY IN LARGE VESSEL VASCULITIS

Background

Factors influencing disease activity assessment by patients and physicians are unknown, but are highly relevant in the context of PROs development.

Objectives

To compare the patients’ and physicians’ global assessment of disease activity in large vessel vasculitis and investigate factors influencing the assessment of disease activity.

Methods

Between 2010 and 2020, patients with large vessel vasculitis and their routine caring physicians assessed a global disease activity score (numerical rating scale 0 – 10) in our outpatient clinic. We compared these global scores of disease activity. In a multiple linear regression analysis we examined the influence of potential demographical and clinical factors on the disease activity assessment.

Results

138 Patients with 866 assessments were available for analysis. At timepoint of assessment they had a mean age of 76 (± 9) years and a mean disease duration of 5 years (± 5). The median global score of patient-reported disease activity was 3 points, the median physicians’ disease activity assessment was 2 points.

In 28,2% (n=244) there was a deviation of more than 2 points between the patients’ and physicians’ assessment of disease activity. Only 5 times the physicians, but 232 times the patients rated their disease activity higher than 5 points.

In this group the patient-reported disease activity was associated with the patients age (β 0.025), the patients BMI (β 0.071) and the extent of pain (β 0.19), p<0.05. The disease duration, CRP level and the psychological well-being of the patient showed no association.

Conclusion

In our cohort, physicians and patients showed greater divergence in disease activity assessment with higher disease activity. Age, BMI and the extent of pain were associated with higher disease activity ratings by the patients. This results are relevant for the development and interpretation of PROs for activity assessment in large vessel vasculitides.

Disclosure of Interests

Anna Kernder: None declared, Marius Rohde: None declared, Hasan Acar: None declared, Oliver Sander Speakers bureau: SOBI Pharma, EUSA Pharma, AbbVie Pharma, Consultant of: SOBI Pharma, EUSA Pharma, Boehringer Pharma, Jutta Richter: None declared, Rebecca Fischer-Betz: 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, Gamal Chehab: None declared

Tachykinins amplify the action of capsaicin on central histaminergic neurons

Substance P (SP), a product of the tachykinin 1 (Tac1) gene, is expressed in many hypothalamic neurons. Its wake-promoting potential could be mediated through histaminergic (HA) neurons of the tuberomamillary nucleus (TMN), where functional expression of neurokinin receptors (NKRs) waits to be characterized. As in the process of nociception in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) capsaicin-receptor (transient potential vanilloid 1: TRPV1) signalling is amplified by local release of histamine and SP, we tested the involvement of tachykinins in the capsaicin-induced long-lasting enhancement (LLEcaps) of HA neurons firing by investigating selective neurokinin receptor ligands in the hypothalamic mouse brain slice preparation using patch-clamp recordings in cell-attached mode combined with single-cell RT-PCR. We report that the majority of HA neurons respond to SP (EC50 3 nM), express the SP precursor tachykinin 1 (Tac1) gene and at least one of the neurokinin receptors. Responses to selective agonists of three known neurokinin receptors were sensitive to corresponding antagonists. LLEcaps was significantly impaired by the neurokinin receptor antagonists, indicating that in hypothalamus, as in the PNS, release of tachykinins downstream to TRPV1 activation is able to boost the release of histamine. The excitatory action of SP on histaminergic neurons adds another pathway to the noradrenergic and orexinergic ones to synergistically enhance cortical arousal. We show NK1R to play a prominent role on HA neurons and thus the control of wakefulness.

POS1458-HPR DIGITAL RHEUMATOLOGY IN THE ERA OF COVID-19: RESULTS OF A NATIONAL PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN SURVEY

Background:

Digital health applications (DHAs) are gaining influence and promise great potential for the monitoring and management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Objectives:

To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on RMD patients’ and rheumatologists’ usage, preferences, and perception of digital health applications (DHAs) in Germany.

Methods:

A web-based national survey was developed by the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology and the German League against Rheumatism. The prospective survey was distributed via social media, QR-code, and email. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and regression analyses were performed to show correlations.

Results:

We analysed the responses of 299 patients and 129 rheumatologists. Most patients (74%) and rheumatologists (76%) believed that DHAs are useful in the management of RMDs and felt confident in their own usage thereof (90%; 86%). 38% of patients and 71% of rheumatologists reported that their attitude had changed positively towards DHAs and that their usage had increased due to COVID-19 (29%; 48%).

Usage and recommendation of DHAs for both groups are shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1.

Usage or recommendation of digital health applications. Patients and rheumatologists were asked to indicate the specific digital health applications (DHAs) they used or were recommended.

The majority in both groups agreed on implementing virtual visits for follow-up appointments in stable disease conditions. The most reported advantages of DHAs were usage independent of time and place (76.6%; 77.5%). The main barriers were a lack of information on suitable, available DHAs (58.5%; 41.9%), poor usability (42.1% of patients) and a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of DHAs (23.2% of rheumatologists) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Advantages and Barriers of DHA, n (%).

AdvantagesBarriersPatientsRheumatologistsPatientsRheumatologistsLocation-Independence229 (76.6)100 (77.5)Too little information175 (58.5)54 (41.9)Time-independence223 (74.6)94 (72.9)Too little evidence of benefits36 (12.0)30 (23.3)Detailed documentation97 (32.4)47 (36.4)Poor quality of current apps47 (15.7)29 (22.5)Cost saving95 (31.8)37 (28.7)Concernsabout data protection52 (17.4)25 (19.4)More information88 (29.4)38 (29.5)Lack of usability126 (42.1)17 (13.2)Independenceof doctors+36 (12.0)-Lack of accessibility4 (1.3)-More flexibility107 (36.8)77 (59.7)High costs4 (1.3)23 (17.8)Preparationfor discussion+46 (15.4)-No suitable equipment17 (5.7)11 (8.5)No advantages at all18 (6.0)1 (0.8)Lack of user competenceNo Need9 (3.0)39 (13.0)-12 (9.3)

Patients and rheumatologists were asked about the advantages and barriers of DHAs. Multiple answers were allowed. Patients had two additional potential advantages and potential barriers to choose from*.

Only a minority (<10% in both groups) believed that digitalisation has a negative impact on the patient-doctor relationship.

Conclusion:

The COVID-19 pandemic instigated an increase in patients’ and rheumatologists’ acceptance and usage of DHAs, possibly introducing a permanent paradigm shift in the management of RMDs.

Acknowledgements:

The authors thank the following persons and societies for their great effort, distributing the online survey: P.Aries, A.Hueber, E.Feist, C.Fiehn, P.Korsten, I.Kötter, F.Mühlensiepen, A.Pfeil, M.Rudwaleit, M.Welcker, S.Zinke, Deutsche Vereinigung Morbus Bechterew e.V., Deutsche Rheuma-Liga Bundesverband e. V., Sklerodermie Selbsthilfe e.V.

Disclosure of Interests:

Anna Kernder: None declared, Harriet Morf: None declared, Philipp Klemm: None declared, Diana Vossen Speakers bureau: Novartis, Abbvie, Amgen, Consultant of: Abbvie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Celgene GmbH, Gilead Sciences Inc., Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Medac GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Deutschland GmbH, UCB Pharma GmbH, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Marco Meyer Consultant of: Medac, Isabell Haase Speakers bureau: Medac, Consultant of: Medac, Grant/research support from: UCB, Abbvie, BMS, Johanna Mucke Speakers bureau: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma Germany GmbH, Celgene GmbH, Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Deutschland GmbH and UCB Pharma GmbH., Consultant of: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma Germany GmbH, Celgene GmbH, Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Deutschland GmbH and UCB Pharma GmbH., Arnd Kleyer Shareholder of: yes, Speakers bureau: Lilly, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis BMS, Gilead,Janssen, Grant/research support from: Lilly, Novartis, Gilead,, Philipp Sewerin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Axiom Health, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai Pharma Marketing Ltd./Chugai Europe, Deutscher Psoriasis-Bund, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead Sciences, Hexal Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Medi-login, Mediri GmbH, Novartis Pharma, Onkowissen GmbH, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Sanofi-Genzyme, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (DFG), Deutscher Psoriasis-Bund, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead Sciences, Hexal Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, and UCB, Gerlinde Bendzuck: None declared, Sabine Eis: None declared, Johannes Knitza Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Lilly, Medac, BMS, Sanofi, Amgen, Gilead, UCB, ABATON, GSK, Grant/research support from: Novartis, UCB, Thermofisher, Sanofi, Martin Krusche Speakers bureau: Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Gilead, Medac, Novartis, Sobi, BMS, Amgen, GSK, Grant/research support from: Sanofi

Quality of care predicts outcome in systemic lupus erythematosus: a cross-sectional analysis of a German long-term study (LuLa cohort)

Objective

Our aim was to study the quality of medical care in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to understand gaps and to analyze the association with outcome of the disease.

Methods

Information on demographics and medical care was assessed by self-reported questionnaires among SLE patients (LuLa cohort, 2011, n = 580). In total, 21 aspects of medical care were analyzed. Univariate analysis selected 10 predictor variables for further analysis: (1) urine examination and (2) blood test in the previous year, (3) taking antimalarials, (4) taking vitamin D and calcium if the dosage of prednisolone was greater than 7.5 mg/day, counseling regarding (5) lipid metabolism, (6) vaccination, and (7) blood pressure, and treatment of the comorbidities (8) hypertension, (9) osteoporosis and (10) lipid metabolism disorder. The association of these 10 items with the outcome of the disease, assessed in 2015, was analyzed by linear regression analysis, adjusted for age, disease duration and sex.

Results

On average six of the 10 items were met (±1.7). Receiving more clinical care in 2013 was predictive for low disease activity (SLAQ, p = 0.024, β = –0.104, corr. R²= 0.048), low progress in disease-related damage (Delta Brief Index of Lupus Questionnaire, p = 0.048, β = –0.132, corr. R²= 0.036) and high health-related quality of life (SF-12 physical, p = 0.035, β = 0.100, corr. R²= 0.091) in 2015.

Conclusion

Our study illustrates a link between the quality of care and the SLE outcome parameters disease activity, disease-related damage and quality of life. Consistent considerations of these care parameters, which are recommended in several management guidelines, could therefore be a good approach to improve the outcome of patients with SLE.

OP0148 MEPOLIZUMAB FOR EOSINOPHILIC GRANULOMATOSIS WITH POLYANGIITIS (EGPA): A RETROSPECTIVE REAL-WORLD EUROPEAN STUDY ON 142 PATIENTS

Background:

Evidence on the efficacy of Mepolizumab (MEPO) in Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (EGPA) is scarce [1].

Objectives:

To assess the efficacy and safety of MEPO in real-life clinical practice.

Methods:

We retrospectively included patients diagnosed with EGPA and treated with MEPO (100 or 300 mg/month). MEPO efficacy was evaluated in the first 12 months in terms of systemic disease and asthma control. The occurrence of any adverse event (AE) was recorded.

Results:

142 patients were included (38% males; median age 46.4 (IQR 36.7-54.4); 110 and 32 on MEPO 100 and 300 mg/month, respectively). General, ear-nose-throat, pulmonary, and neurological symptoms significantly decreased during treatment (table 1). MEPO accounted for a significant reduction in the BVAS (figure 1) and for a steroid sparing effect (figure 2). The proportion of patients with asthma attacks decreased by 90% at 12 months compared to t0, and asthma-related emergency accesses dropped from 17.4% to 2.3%. Overall, 21.1% of patients had a non-serious AE.

Table 1.

Control of clinical symptoms

MEPO beginning (t0)3 monthsp-value(t3 vs t0)6 monthsp-value(t6 vs t0)12 monthsp-value(t12 vs t0)N obsN=142N=135N=123N=89General symptoms40 (28.2%)17 (12.6%)<0.00119 (15.5%)<0.00113 (14.6%)0.002Cutaneous manifestations13 (9.2%)6 (4.4%)0.0085 (4.1%)0.0254 (4.5%)0.180ENT manifestations106 (74.7%)52 (38.5%)<0.00144 (35.8%)<0.00129 (32.6%)<0.001Pulmonary manifestations130 (91.6%)59 (43.7%)<0.00139 (31.7%)<0.00128 (31.5%)<0.001Cardiac manifestations6 (4.2%)2 (1.5%)0.0832 (1.6%)0.08300.157Intestinal manifestations10 (7.0%)1 (0.7%)0.0054 (3.3%)0.0593 (3.4%)0.059Renal manifestations5 (3.5%)3 (2.2%)0.41400.0461 (1.1%)0.317Neurological manifestations36 (25.4%)22 (16.3%)0.01218 (14.6%)0.00310 (11.2%)0.035Figure 1.

Changes in BVAS

Figure 2.

Steroid treatment

Conclusion:

MEPO effectively controlled systemic and respiratory EGPA symptoms in a large European cohort, with no major safety concerns.

References:

[1]Wechsler et al. MEPO or Placebo for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis. NEJM. 2017

Disclosure of Interests:

Alessandra Bettiol: None declared, Maria Letizia Urban: None declared, Federico Alberici: None declared, Carlo Agostini: None declared, Chiara Baldini: None declared, Enrica Bozzolo: None declared, Paolo Cameli: None declared, Nunzio Crimi: None declared, Stefano Del Giacco: None declared, Allyson Egan: None declared, Georgina Espigol-Frigole Consultant of: Roche and Janssen, Mara Felicetti: None declared, Marco Folci: None declared, Paolo Fraticelli: None declared, Marcello Govoni: None declared, Anna Kernder Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma for performing the LuLa-study., Carlo Lombardi: None declared, Giuseppe Lopalco: None declared, Claudio Lunardi: None declared, Aladdin J Mohammad Speakers bureau: lecture fees from Roche and Elli Lilly Sweden, PI (GiACTA study), Frank Moosig: None declared, Simone Negrini: None declared, Thomas Neumann: None declared, Pavel Novikov Grant/research support from: This work was supported by the 5-100 Project, Sechenov University, Moscow, Giuseppe Paolazzi: None declared, paola parronchi: None declared, Luca Quartuccio Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Vito Racanelli: None declared, Carlo Salvarani: None declared, Maxime Samson: None declared, Jan Schroeder: None declared, Savino Sciascia: None declared, Renato A. Sinico: None declared, Benjamin Terrier: None declared, Paola Toniati: None declared, Domenico Prisco: None declared, Augusto Vaglio: None declared, Giacomo Emmi: None declared

FRI0174 THE LONGER THE DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS, THE WORSE THE OUTCOME IN SLE – CROSS SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OF A GERMAN LONG-TERM STUDY (LULA COHORT)

Background:

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), even compared to those with other rheumatic diseases, are thought to often experience a long delay from the onset of symptoms to diagnosis.

Objectives:

Our aim was to study the association of this delay to the long-term outcome of the disease.

Methods:

Information on demographics, onset of first symptoms, first physicians visit, time of diagnosis and organ involvement was assessed by self-reported questionnaires among SLE patients in Germany in 2011 (LuLa cohort, n=585). Disease related damage (Brief Index of Lupus Damage; BILD), disease activity (Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire; SLAQ) and health related quality of life (SF-12) were chosen as proxies for outcome. The association to the outcome of the disease was analyzed by linear regression analysis, adjusted for age, disease duration, organ involvement and sex.

Results:

In our cohort, the mean reported duration between the onset of symptoms and the diagnosis of SLE was 46 months (SD 73), which includes 13 months (SD 41) between the onset of symptoms and the first physicians visit. The participating patients were diagnosed between 1960 and 2004.

Linear regression analysis revealed that longer time to diagnosis was associated with (i) higher disease activity (SLAQ, p<0.0001, β=0.199), (ii) higher disease-related damage (BILD, p=0.002, β=0.137) and (iii) lower health-related quality of life (SF-12 physical p=0.004, β=-0.136, SF-12 mental p=0.004, β=-0.143) in the year 2011. The organ involvement at the time of diagnosis did not alter these results.

Conclusion:

A delay in diagnosis was associated with a worse outcome in SLE (disease activity, disease-related damage and health-related quality of life). Therefore, an early diagnosis seems to be important to improve the long-term outcome of the disease. It will be interesting to see whether adopting the new EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria can contribute to a faster diagnosis and a better outcome in consequence.

The LuLa study is supported by unrestricted grants from GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma.

Disclosure of Interests:

Anna Kernder Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma for performing the LuLa-study., Jutta Richter Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma for performing the LuLa-study., Rebecca Fischer-Betz Consultant of: UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Pfizer., Borgi Winkler-Rohlfing: None declared, Martin Aringer Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, 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, Gamal Chehab Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma for performing the LuLa-study.