Pulmonary hypertension in connective tissue diseases: What every CTD specialist should know - but is afraid to ask!

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a possible complication of connective tissue diseases (CTDs), especially systemic sclerosis (SSc), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD). It is defined by an elevation of the mean pulmonary arterial pressure above 20mmHg documented during a right heart catheterization (RHC). Due to their multiorgan involvement, CTDs can induce PH by several mechanisms, that are sometimes intricated: pulmonary vasculopathy (group 1) affecting arterioles (pulmonary arterial hypertension, PAH) and possibly venules (pulmonary veno-occlusive-like disease), left-heart disease (group 2), chronic lung disease (group 3) and/or chronic thromboembolic PH (group 4). PH suspicion is often raised by clinical manifestations (dyspnea, fatigue), echocardiographic data (increased peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity), isolated decrease in DLCO in pulmonary function tests, and/or unexplained elevation of BNP/NT-proBNP. Its formal diagnosis always requires a hemodynamic confirmation by RHC. Strategies for PH screening and RHC referral have been extensively investigated for SSc-PAH but data are lacking in other CTDs. Therapeutic management of PH depends of the underlying mechanism(s): PAH-approved therapies in group 1 PH (with possible use of immunosuppressants, especially in case of SLE or MCTD); management of an underlying left-heart disease in group 2 PH; management of an underlying chronic lung disease in group 3 PH; anticoagulation, pulmonary endartectomy, PAH-approved therapies and/or balloon pulmonary angioplasty in group 4 PH. Regular follow-up is mandatory in all CTD-PH patients.

Steroid hormones in systemic sclerosis: associations with disease characteristics and modifications during scleroderma renal crisis

OBJECTIVE

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and glucocorticoids (GCs) are involved in vascular remodeling and fibrosis, but have not been extensively studied in systemic sclerosis (SSc). Our aim was to investigate the RAAS and GC hormones in SSc patients.

METHODS

Serum levels of renin (dosage and activity), aldosterone and its precursors (DOC, B, 18-OH-DOC, 18-OH-B), and GCs (cortisol, cortisone, 11-deoxycortisol, 18-OH-F) were assessed in 122 SSc patients and 52 healthy controls. After applying stringent inclusion criteria aimed at ensuring accurate hormone assessments (exclusion of interfering drugs, strict sampling conditions), we analyzed RAAS hormones in 61 patients, and GCs in 96 patients. Hormone levels were compared between patients and controls; and associations with disease characteristics were assessed in patients.

RESULTS

Regarding RAAS hormones, SSc patients displayed significantly lower aldosterone levels (although within normal range), similar renin levels, and higher B levels than controls. Abnormal RAAS hormone levels were associated with a more severe SSc phenotype (lung and skin fibrosis, heart and pulmonary vascular involvements, inflammation). Regarding GC hormones, SSc patients had higher levels of cortisol, 11-desoxycortisol (precursor) and 18-OH-F (metabolite) but lower levels of cortisone (inactive counterpart) than controls.RAAS hormone levels were assessed in 5 SSc patients before and during scleroderma renal crisis (SRC): concentrations varied considerably between patients, but consistently included normal/increased aldosterone levels and elevated renin levels.

CONCLUSION

RAAS and GC hormones are abnormally produced in SSc patients, especially in patients with severe SSc and during SRC. This could suggest a participation of these hormonal systems in SSc pathogenesis.

Atteintes coronariennes et artérite a cellules géantes : à propos de 2 cas et revue de la littérature

INTRODUCTION

Coronaritis is a rare but serious complication of giant-cell arteritis (GCA), with an estimated prevalence of less than 1%, however difficult to establish, and of early onset.

METHODS

We describe 2 cases of GCA presenting with coronaritis and present a review of the literature on this complication.

RESULTS

The first patient presented with stable angina on common trunk coronaritis with ostial stenosis. Corticosteroid combined with tocilizumab from the outset resulted in improvement. Angioplasty was performed at 6months with good outcome. The second patient presented with asymptomatic tritruncular ostial coronaritis. Corticosteroid allowed clinic-biological improvement of GCA. Two years later, he presented relapse with an acute coronary syndrome, with favorable evolution after angioplasty, increase of corticosteroids and addition of tocilizumab.

CONCLUSION

Patients presented were successfully treated with corticosteroids combined with tocilizumab and angioplasty of their coronary stenoses. Efficacy of tocilizumab in GCA has not been evaluated especially on coronaritis due to the rarity of this complication. Our experience and the cases reported in the literature suggest good results of angioplasty in this indication. Studies with long-term follow-up will be necessary to evaluate the risk of restenosis.

Stratégies innovantes de vaccination anti-pneumococcique par rapport au schéma standard chez les patients atteints de vascularites associées aux ANCA recevant du rituximab : essai contrôlé randomisé multicentrique (PNEUMOVAS)

Introduction

Les patients recevant des glucocorticoïdes et du rituximab (RTX) présentent un risque accru d’infections, en particulier d’infections invasives à pneumocoque. Les réponses vaccinales au virus de la grippe, au Streptococcus pneumoniae et au SARS-CoV-2 sous traitement par RTX sont fortement altérées. Chez les patients atteints de maladies auto-immunes recevant de tels traitements, en particulier ceux atteints de vascularites associées aux ANCA (AAV), il est donc nécessaire de développer des stratégies vaccinales anti-pneumococciques améliorées pour augmenter la réponse immunitaire et la protection vaccinale.

Patients et méthodes

Cet essai multicentrique de phase 2, randomisé, ouvert, a comparé deux stratégies innovantes de vaccin anti-pneumococcique « renforcées » au schéma de vaccination standard chez des patients atteints de VAA recevant un traitement par RTX. Des patients adultes atteints de VAA nouvellement diagnostiquée ou en rechute, présentant une maladie active (BVAS ≥ 3) et devant recevoir du RTX comme traitement d’induction (375 mg/m²/semaine pendant 4 semaines consécutives), ont été randomisés avec un rapport 1:1:1 dans trois bras parallèles : schéma standard associant une dose de vaccin pneumococcique conjugué 13-valent (PCV13) au jour 0 suivie d’une dose de vaccin non conjugué 23-valent (PPV23) au mois 5 (M5) (bras 1) ; double dose de PCV13 au jour 0 et au jour 7 suivie d’une dose de PPV23 à M5 (bras 2) ; ou 4 doses de PCV13 au jour 0 suivies d’une dose de PPV23 à M5 (bras 3). Le critère d’évaluation principal était la réponse immunitaire à M6 contre les 12 sérotypes de pneumocoque communs aux vaccins PCV13 et PPV23, classée selon quatre catégories ordonnées de réponse : réponse positive en anticorps contre 0–3, 4–6, 7–9 ou 10–12 sérotypes. Une réponse positive par sérotype était définie par un titre ELISA d’IgG spécifiques ≥ 1 μg/mL et une augmentation de deux fois par rapport au jour 0. Le critère d’évaluation primaire a été analysé dans un modèle de régression logistique à chances proportionnelles avec une correction de Bonferonni pour les 2 bras innovants. Les critères d’évaluation secondaires étaient les réactions locales et systémiques sollicitées 7 jours après chaque vaccination et tout événement indésirable lié ou pouvant être lié à l’immunisation vaccinale.

Résultats

Quatre-vingt-quinze participants ont été analysés dans la population modifiée en intention de traiter (âge moyen 60 ± 16,6 ans, 50 % d’hommes, 74 personnes atteintes d’une maladie nouvellement diagnostiquée, 66 d’une granulomatose avec polyangéite et 29 d’une polyangéite microscopique, BVAS moyen 15,3 ± 6,9), dont 30 affectés au bras 1, 32 au bras 2 et 33 au bras 3.

À M6, une réponse immunitaire contre 0–3, 4–6, 7–9 ou 10–12 sérotypes était observée chez 83,3 %, 13,3 %, 3,3 % et 0 % dans le bras 1 ; 56,3 %, 28,1 %, 15,6 % et 0 % dans le bras 2 ; et 60,6 %, 33,3 %, 6,1 % et 0 % dans le bras 3. Les patients du bras 2 étaient significativement plus susceptibles de se trouver dans une catégorie de réponse supérieures par rapport au régime standard après ajustement sur l’âge, avec un odds ratio proportionnel (pOR) de 4,1 (IC97,5 % : 1,1–15,9, p = 0,018), tandis que le bras 3 montrait une tendance non significative à améliorer les réponses vaccinales (pOR : 3,1, IC97,5 % : 0,8–11,9, p = 0,062). Une analyse de sensibilité sur une population per-protocole excluant les patients ayant subi des vaccinations ou des prises de sang hors des délais donnait des estimations concordantes.

Les réactions locales et/ou systémiques dans les 7 jours après chaque vaccination, et tout événement indésirable lié ou possiblement lié à la vaccination au cours des 6 premiers mois, sont survenus en plus grand nombre avec les schémas renforcés mais étaient principalement des réactions locales de grade 1 ou 2. Aucun événement indésirable grave lié à la vaccination n’a été observé.

Au cours du suivi, 8 poussées de vascularite sont survenues chez 6 patients, en médiane 87 jours après la dernière vaccination : un patient dans le bras 1, 2 dans le bras 2, et 3 dans le bras 3.

Conclusion

Chez les patients atteints de VAA recevant un traitement par RTX, une stratégie innovante de vaccination anti-pneumococcique renforcée, basée sur une double dose de PCV13 au jour 0 et au jour 7 suivie d’une dose unique de PPV23 à M5, améliore significativement les réponses en anticorps contre Streptococcus pneumoniae par rapport au schéma standard.

OP0280 WEANING OF MAINTENANCE IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE THERAPY IN LUPUS NEPHRITIS (WIN-Lupus): A MULTICENTER RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Background

Lupus nephritis (LN) is a frequent complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Severe (proliferative) forms of LN are treated with an induction immunosuppressive therapy (IST), followed by a maintenance IST, to target remission and avoid relapses. The optimal duration of maintenance IST for proliferative LN is unknown.

Objectives

The WIN-Lupus trial tested whether IST discontinuation after 2-3 years in proliferative LN was non-inferior to IST continuation for 2 more years.

Methods

WIN-Lupus is an investigator-initiated academic randomized controlled trial, conducted in 28 French centers. Patients on maintenance IST with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil for a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 3 years, and who were taking Hydroxychloroquine, were randomized (1:1) between 2 groups: IST continuation and IST discontinuation. The primary endpoint was the relapse rate of proliferative LN at 24 months. Secondary endpoints were the rate of severe SLE flares, survival without renal relapse or severe flare, adverse events, kidney function, disease activity, corticosteroid exposure, patient-reported outcome and medico-economic impact.

Results

Between 2011 and 2016, 125 patients were screened and 96 were randomized in the trial: 48 in the IST continuation group, 48 in the IST discontinuation group. In the per-protocol population, a relapse of proliferative LN occurred in 5/40 (10.4%) patients with IST continuation, and in 12/44 (25%) patients with IST discontinuation (difference 14.8%, 95%CI [-1.9; 31.5]). Non-inferiority was not demonstrated for relapse rate. Time to renal relapse did not differ between groups (p=0.092). Severe SLE flares (renal or extra-renal) were less frequent in patients with IST continuation compared to IST discontinuation (5/40 vs 14/44 patients, p=0.035). IST discontinuation was associated with lower health-related costs. Adverse events did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

Non-inferiority of maintenance IST discontinuation after 2 to 3 years was not demonstrated for renal relapse. IST discontinuation was associated with a higher risk of severe SLE flare.

References

[1]Moroni G et al. When and how is it possible to stop therapy in patients with lupus nephritis? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021. CJN.04830421. doi: 10.2215/CJN.04830421.

[2]Fanouriakis A et al. 2019 Update of the Joint European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EULAR/ERA-EDTA) recommendations for the management of lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(6):713-723.

[3]Jourde-Chiche N et al. Proliferative lupus nephritis treatment: practice survey in nephrology and internal medicine in France. Nephrol Ther. 2014;10(3):170-6.

[4]Zen M et al. Immunosuppressive therapy withdrawal after remission achievement in patients with lupus nephritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;keab373. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab373.

[5]Malvar A et al. Kidney biopsy-based management of maintenance immunosuppression is safe and may ameliorate flare rate in lupus nephritis. Kidney Int. 2020;97(1):156-162.

Acknowledgements

Groupe Coopératif sur le Lupus Rénal (GCLR)

Disclosure of Interests

Noemie JOURDE-CHICHE Speakers bureau: Vifor Pharma, Grant/research support from: Fresenius Medical Care: grant paid to my institution (AP-HM) for the CINEVAS study in ANCA-associated vasculitis, Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau Grant/research support from: AP-HP received a research support from ROCHE for the OBILUP trial, Karine Baumstarck: None declared, LAURENCE BOUILLET Speakers bureau: GSK, novartis, biocryst, takeda, behring, Paid instructor for: takeda, novartis, Consultant of: GSK, novartis, biocryst, takeda, behring, blueprint, Grant/research support from: takeda, gsk, sanofi, biocryst, novartis, Stéphane Burtey: None declared, Valerie Caudwell: None declared, Laurent Chiche Speakers bureau: BMS, Paid instructor for: BMS, Lionel Couzi Speakers bureau: Astellas, Chiesi, Novartis, Sandoz, Ostuka, GSK, Biotest, Consultant of: Biotest, Hansa, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Astellas, Christophe DELIGNY: None declared, Bertrand Dussol Speakers bureau: Genzyme, Novonordisk, Grant/research support from: Shire, Stanislas Faguer Speakers bureau: Asahi, Vifor Pharma, Sanofi, Consultant of: Abyonyx Pharma, Pierre Gobert: None declared, Guillaume Gondran Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, Consultant of: Genzyme, Antoine Huart Speakers bureau: Janssen, Paid instructor for: Pfizer, Aurélie Hummel: None declared, Emilie Kalbacher: None declared, Alexandre Karras Speakers bureau: Vifor, GSK, Astra-Zeneca, Roche, Paid instructor for: Vifor, Sanofi, Alexion, Consultant of: Novartis, GSK, Bohringer-Ingelheim, Marc Lambert Speakers bureau: CHUGAI-ROCHE, BAYER, PFIZER, LEOPHARMA, Paid instructor for: CHUGAI-ROCHE, Consultant of: CHUGAI-ROCHE, BAYER, PFIZER, LEOPHARMA, Grant/research support from: CHUGAI-ROCHE, Véronique LE GUERN: None declared, Sandrine Loubiere: None declared, Helene Maillard: None declared, Francois Maurier: None declared, Micheline Pha: None declared, Viviane Queyrel Paid instructor for: GSK, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Francoise Sarrot-Reynauld: None declared, David Verhelst: None declared, Eric Hachulla Speakers bureau: Johnson & Johnson, GSK, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, GSK, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi-Genzyme, Grant/research support from: CSL Behring, GSK, Roche-Chugai and Johnson & Johnson, Zahir Amoura Speakers bureau: GSK, CSL Behring, Consultant of: GSK, Grant/research support from: GSK, Eric Daugas Speakers bureau: GSK, Amgen, Paid instructor for: GSK, Astra Zeneca, Consultant of: GSK, Astra Zeneca, Amgen, Grant/research support from: ROCHE for the OBILUP trial (AP-HP)

AB1120 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC RHEUMATIC, SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNE, OR AUTOINFLAMMATORY DISEASES PRESENTED WITH COVID-19: THE MentCOVRMD STUDY

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about its psychological effects. Sleep disturbances, anxiety and/or depressive symptoms, post-traumatic stress symptoms have been reported in general population. Patients with chronic rheumatism, systemic autoimmune disease or auto-inflammatory disease, due to immunosuppression, are at risk of severe forms of infection. Currently, there is little information on psychological impact of the pandemic on the mental health of these more vulnerable patients.

Objectives

To compare psychological assessment between patients with chronic rheumatic, autoimmune and/or autoinflammatory diseases who presented with COVID-19 infection between March and September 2020, first wave of French pandemic, and patients with same diseases who did not presented with infection to date.

Methods

The MentCOVRMD study was a multicenter descriptive study. Cases were patients with chronic rheumatic, autoimmune and/or autoinflammatory diseases from the French RMD cohort who presented COVID-19 infection between March and September 2020. Controls were patients with same diseases who did not develop infection. The study is registered in Clinical Trials under number 2020-A02058-31.

For participants, following criteria were collected: demographics (age, gender, smoking status); psychological assessment questionnaires: Insomnia Severity Index (ISI); Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) checklist; Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9) Depression; Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD7) Anxiety; Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD)-12.

Results

Between February and December 2021, 60 cases (46 (76.7%) women), median age 52.0 (39.0; 63.0) were included, of which 15 (25%) had been hospitalized during infection, and 169 controls (148 (87.6%) women), median age of 52.0 (38.0; 63.0). There were more smokers in the group of cases 12 (20%) than controls 14 (9.1%) (p=0.028) as well as more cases on ARA2 treatment (8 (13.3%)) than controls (7 (4.5%)) (p=0.035) with no statistically significant difference in others comorbidities or treatments.

There was no statistically difference concerning the ISI scores between cases (11.83 ± 7.31) of which 60% had sleep disorders and controls (11.64 ± 6.82) of which 70.4% had sleep disorders. There was no statistically significant difference in PTSD scores of 15.5 (5.0 to 28.0) for cases and 18.0 (8.0 to 35.0) for controls, of which respectively 12 (20%) had values indicating possible PTSD for cases and 50 (29.6%) for controls. There was no statistically significant difference in PHQ-9 scores (5.5 (1.5 to 11.0)) of which 50% had depressive symptoms and controls (6.0 (2.0 to 11.0)) of which 54.5% had symptoms. There was no statistically significant difference in GAD-7 scores (3.5 (0.0 to 8.0)) of which 40% had anxiety symptoms and controls (4.0 (0.0 to 8.0)) of which 43.2% had symptoms. There was no statistically significant difference in PHQ-15 scores (11.4 ± 6.7), 85% of whom reported presence of symptoms, and controls (10.9 ± 6.2), 82.3% of whom reported symptoms. There was no statistically significant difference in SSD scores between cases (17.7 ± 10.9) and controls (18.4 ± 10.9).

There was a statistically significant difference in reported VAS scores of pain related to inflammatory rheumatism in cases with a median of 4.5 (3.0 to 6. 0) compared to controls with a median of 4.0 (1.0 to 6.0) (p=0.011).

There was no statistically significant difference in any of the psychological assessment scores between the inpatient and outpatient COVID cases.

Conclusion

There was no statistically significant difference between COVID cases and controls in the evaluation of these psychological parameters. Prevalence of all these variables were high in the whole study population, testifying to the need to manage these psychological aspects for patients with chronic rheumatisms, autoimmune and/or autoinflammatory diseases.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS1232 LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF COVID-19 VACCINATION IN PATIENTS WITH RARE AND COMPLEX CONNECTIVE TISSUE DISEASES: AN AD-INTERIM ANALYSIS OF ERN-ReCONNET VACCINATE STUDY

Background

Since the COVID-19 vaccination campaign was launched all over Europe, there has been general agreement on how benefits of SARS-CoV2 vaccines outweigh the risks in patients with rare connective tissue diseases (rCTDs). Yet, there is still limited evidence regarding safety and efficacy of such vaccines in these patients, especially in the long-term. For this reason, in the framework of ERN-ReCONNET, an observational long-term study (VACCINATE) was designed in order to explore the long-term outcome of COVID-19 vaccination in rCTDs patients. The consent form was developed thanks to the involvement of the ERN ReCONNET ePAG Advocates (European Patients Advocacy Group).

Objectives

To evaluate the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccination in rCTDs patients and the potential impact on disease activity. Primary endpoints were the prevalence of adverse events (AEs) and of disease exacerbations post-vaccination. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 (adapted from https://brightoncollaboration.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SO2_D2.1.2_V1.2_COVID-19_AESI-update-23Dec2020-review_final.pdf)

Methods

The first ad-interim analysis of the VACCINATE study involved 9 ERN-ReCONNET Network centres. Patients over 18 years of age with a known rCTD and who received vaccine against COVID-19 were eligible for recruitment. Demographic data and diagnoses were collected at the time of enrolment, while the appearance of AEs and potential disease exacerbations were monitored after one week from each vaccination dose, and then after 4, 12 and 24 weeks from the second dose. A disease exacerbation was defined as at least one of the following: new manifestations attributable to disease activity, hospitalization, increase in PGA from previous evaluation, addition of corticosteroids or immunosuppressants.

Results

A cohort of 300 patients (261 females, mean age 52, range 18-85) was recruited. Systemic lupus erythematosus (44%) and systemic sclerosis (16%) were the most frequent diagnoses, followed by Sjogren’s syndrome (SS,12%), idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IMM,10%), undifferentiated connective tissue disease (UCTD,8%), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD,4%), Ehlers-Danlos’s syndrome (EDS,4%), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS,2%). AEs appearing 7 days after the first and second doses were reported in 93 (31%) and 96 (32%) patients respectively, mainly represented by fatigue, injection site reaction, headache, fever and myalgia. Otitis, urticaria, Herpes Simplex-related rash, stomatitis, migraine with aura, vertigo, tinnitus and sleepiness were reported with very low frequency. Less than 2% of patients experienced AEs within 24 weeks from the second dose. No SAEs or AEs of special interest were observed in the study period. There were 25 disease exacerbations (8%), 7 of which severe. The highest number of exacerbations was observed after 4 weeks from the second dose (12 within week 4, 6 within week 12 and 7 within week 24). Disease exacerbation was most frequent in patients with EDS (33%) and MCTD (25%).

Conclusion

This preliminary analysis shows that COVID-19 vaccination is safe in rCTDs patients. AEs appear most often early after vaccination and are usually mild. Disease exacerbations are not frequent, but can be potentially severe and tend to occur most frequently within the first month after vaccination. Exacerbations can also occur 3-6 months after vaccination, although a causal relationship with the vaccination remains to be established. Our present data underline the importance of long-term observational studies.

Table 1.

AEs and disease exacerbations per disease

DiagnosisPatients enrolled (%) (n=300)EAs after 1st and 2nd dose (%)Exacerbations (%)APS25714EDS45033IIM10527MCTD44225SS12598SLE44698SSC16492UCTD850-

Acknowledgements

VACCINATE is a study promoted by the European Reference Network on rare and complex connective tissue diseases, ERN ReCONNET. This publication was funded by the European Union’s Health Programme (2014-2020)

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.

AB1131 IDENTIFICATION OF FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OCCURRENCE OF SEVERE FORMS OF COVID-19 INFECTION IN PATIENTS WITH AUTOIMMUNE/INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATIC DISEASES

Background

Patients with autoimmune/inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRD) were suspected to be an at-risk population of severe COVID-19. However, whether this higher risk is linked to the disease or to its treatment is difficult to determine.

Objectives

To identify, among AIRD patients, factors associated with occurrence of moderate-to-severe COVID19 infection and to evaluate if having an AIRD was associated with an increased risk of severe form of COVID19 infection (defined by hospitalization in ICU or death), compared to general population.

Methods

Data source: The “Entrepôt des Données de Santé (EDS)” collect data from electronic health records of all patients hospitalized or followed in the AP-HP (39 hospitals in Paris area, France). The French RMD COVID19 cohort is a national multi-center cohort that included patients with confirmed AIRD and diagnosed with COVID-19. All AIRD patients diagnosed with COVID-19 before September 2020 from both cohorts were included.

-We Identified factors associated with severe COVID-19 was made in a combined analysis of the 2 cohorts.

-Then, we compared COVID-19 infection severity in the EDS-COVID database in AIRD patients and controls, by a propensity score (PS)-matched case-control (1:4) study

Results

Among 1213 patients (334 in EDS and 879 in RMD cohort), 195 (16.1%) experienced a severe COVID19. In multivariate analysis, greater age, history of interstitial lung disease, arterial hypertension, obesity, sarcoidosis, vasculitis, auto-inflammatory disease and treatment with corticosteroids or rituximab were associated with severe COVID-19 (Table 1).

Table 1.

AIRD patient’s characteristics associated with severity of COVID-19

Patients with mild or moderate infectionPatients with severe infectionOR ajustés 95%CIp-value(N = 1018)(N = 195)Patients characteristics Age55.9 (16.7%)70.3 (14.3%)1.05 [1.03;1.07]<0.001 Gender: Female695 (68.3%)105 (54.1%)0.59 [0.38;0.94]0.025 Interstitial pneumonia38 (3.7%)20 (10.3%)2.94 [1.34;6.34]0.008 Obesity143 (17.8%)38 (27.7%)2.09 [1.26;3.43]0.004 Hypertension268 (26.3%)114 (58.5%)1.81 [1.13;2.89]0.013Underlying Disease: Chronic inflammatory arthritis618 (60.8%)72 (36.9%)Ref. Auto-inflammatory disease29 (2.9%)5 (2.6%)3.91 [1.2;11.32]0.025 Other29 (2.9%)4 (2.1%)0.35 [0.06;1.41]0.15 Connectivitis190 (18.7%)34 (17.4%)1.13 [0.62;2.01]0.69 Sarcoidosis40 (3.9%)24 (12.3%)5.19 [2.15;12.3]<0.001 Vasculitis111 (10.9%)56 (28.7%)1.8 [1.02;3.16]0.044Treatments Corticosteroid318 (31.2%)117 (60.0%)2.47 [1.58;3.87]<0.001 Leflunomide44 (4.3%)2 (1.0%)0.13 [0;0.97]0.045 Rituximab37 (3.7%)22 (11.5%)4.05 [1.96;8.27]<0.001Not significant in multivariate analysisCOPD, Asthma, Coronary heart diseases, stroke, diabetes, smoking, cancer, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, colchicine, hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, salazopyrine, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, intravenous immunoglobulins, anti-TNFα, anti-IL1, -IL6, -IL17, Abatacept, JAK inhibitor

Among 35741 COVID-19 patients in EDS, 316 with AIRD were compared to 1264 PS-matched controls. Severe form occurred in 118 (37,3%) AIRD cases and 384 (30.4%) controls (Adjusted OR (aOR) for severe form= 1.43 [1.1;1.9], p=0,01). In analysis restricted to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondylarthritis (SpA), no increased risk of severe form (aOR=1.11 [0.68;1.81]) form or death (aOR=1.00 [0.55;1.81]) was observed.

Conclusion

In this multicenter study we confirmed that AIRD patients treated with rituximab or corticosteroids were at increased risk of severe COVID-19, as were those with vasculitis, auto-inflammatory disease, and sarcoidosis. Also, when compared to controls from the same cohort of hospitalized patients, AIRD patients had, overall, an increased risk of severe COVID-19, increased risk not observed in an analysis restricted to patients with RA or SpA.

Acknowledgements

FAI2R /SFR/SNFMI/SOFREMIP/CRI/IMIDIATE consortium and contributors

Patricia Martel

All clinicians/physicians implicated in COVID-19 patient care in APHP hospital and generated EDS patient data

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0914 LATE SKIN FIBROSIS IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: A STUDY FROM THE EUSTAR COHORT

Background

Skin fibrosis is a cardinal feature of systemic sclerosis (SSc) and associated with significant disability. The early trajectory of skin fibrosis provides insights into the course of the disease including mortality; however, little is known about late skin fibrosis in SSc.

Objectives

The aims of our study were to ascertain the prevalence and characteristics of late skin fibrosis in SSc.

Methods

We developed and tested three conceptual scenarios of late (>5 years after 1st non-RP sign or symptom) skin fibrosis (Figure 1):

Figure 1.

Conceptual models/scenarios of late skin fibrosis in SSc. A: worsening and then improvement (>3 mRSS) during the first 5 years, and then worsened again after 5 years. B: worsening for the first time after 5 years. C: worsening in the first 5 years and stayed high after 5 years (i.e., failure to improve).

A. Worsening and then improvement (>3 mRSS) during the first 5 years, and then worsened again after 5 years.

B. Worsening for the first time after 5 years.

C. Worsening in the first 5 years and stayed high after 5 years (i.e., failure to improve).

We defined skin worsening as modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) ≥ 5 units or ≥ 25%. Using strict inclusion criteria including complete mRSS, we identified 1,043 (out of 19,115) patients within the EUSTAR database for our analysis. We further restricted analysis within 887 (out of 1,043) patients who had limited (lcSSc) or diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) at baseline.

Results

One-fifth of patients among the whole cohort (n=208/1043, 19.9%) including in patients with lcSSc or dcSSc at baseline (n=193/887, 21.8%) developed late skin fibrosis. This was largely due to new skin worsening or failure to improve. Patients with lower baseline mRSS and lcSSc were more likely to develop late skin fibrosis. Anti-Scl-70 antibodies (Table 1) were associated with progression from baseline lcSSc to dcSSc, and anticentromere antibodies were protective.

Table 1.

Impact of autoantibody status on progression from baseline limited to diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc).

Skin worsening after 5 years (Scenario B) (n=70)Skin worsening within 5 years and failed to improve after 5-year window (Scenario C) (n=61)Progressed to dcSSc (n=23)Not progressed to dcSSc(n=47)P-valueProgressed to dcSSc (n=37)Not progressed to dcSSc(n=24)P-valueAnticentromere+ve2/22 (9.1%)19/42 (45.2%)0.00346/34 (17.6%)14/21 (66.7%)0.0002-ve20/22 (90.9%)23/42 (54.8%)28/34 (82.4%)7/21 (33.3%)Anti-Scl-70+ve15/23 (65.2%)14/44 (31.8%)0.008822/36 (61.1%)8/23 (34.8%)0.0485-ve8/23 (34.8%)30/44 (68.2%)14/36 (38.9%)15/23 (65.2%)Anti-RNA-Polymerase-III+ve0/12 (0.0%)1/22 (4.5%)1.00000/6 (0.0%)0/14 (0.0%)---ve12/12 (100%)21/22 (95.5%)6/6 (100%)14/14 (100%)

Conclusion

Late skin fibrosis affects approximately 20% of SSc patients >5 years after onset of disease. We have identified different patterns relevant to clinical practice and trial design. Late skin fibrosis is usually due to new worsening or failure of skin to improve. Progression from baseline limited to diffuse cutaneous SSc was associated with anti-Scl-70 antibodies, and anticentromere antibodies were protective. Late skin fibrosis is a neglected manifestation of SSc and warrants further investigation including to determine clinical outcomes and optimal therapeutic strategy.

Acknowledgements

On behalf of EUSTAR collaborators.

Disclosure of Interests

Michael Hughes Speakers bureau: Speaking fees from Actelion pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work, Suiyuan Huang: None declared, Juan Jose Alegre Sancho Speakers bureau: Speaking and/or investigational fees from Actelion pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and GSK, outside of the submitted work, Grant/research support from: Speaking and/or investigational fees from Actelion pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and GSK, outside of the submitted work, Patricia Carreira: None declared, Merete Engelhart: None declared, Eric Hachulla Speakers bureau: Received consulting fees/meeting fees from Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, GSK, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi-Genzyme; speaking fees from Johnson & Johnson, GSK, Roche-Chugai; and research funding from CSL Behring, GSK, Roche-Chugai and Johnson & Johnson., Consultant of: Received consulting fees/meeting fees from Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, GSK, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi-Genzyme; speaking fees from Johnson & Johnson, GSK, Roche-Chugai; and research funding from CSL Behring, GSK, Roche-Chugai and Johnson & Johnson., Jörg Henes Speakers bureau: Lectures for CHUGAI, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eduardo Kerzberg: None declared, Maria Rosa Pozzi: None declared, Gabriela Riemekasten: None declared, Vanessa Smith: None declared, Gabriella Szucs: None declared, Marie Vanthuyne: None declared, Elisabetta Zanatta: None declared, Oliver Distler: None declared, Armando Gabrielli: None declared, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold: None declared, Viginia Steen: None declared, Dinesh Khanna Shareholder of: DK has stock options in Eicos Sciences, Inc., Consultant of: Consultant for Acceleron, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chemomab, Genentech/Roche, Horizon, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Prometheus, Talaris., Grant/research support from: Has received grants from Bayer, BMS, Horizon and Pfizer (to University of Michigan).

POS0387 RISK STRATIFICATION APPROACHES PERFORM DIFFERENTLY IN SSc-ASSOCIATED PAH IN EUSTAR

Background

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a major clinical challenge in systemic sclerosis (SSc), and is associated with high mortality. Risk stratification provides an estimate for individual patient risk of 1-year mortality. The aim is to detect patients with the worst prognosis to optimize management strategies. Nine risk stratification approaches have been proposed in PAH, but have not been validated in SSc-PAH.

Objectives

To assess four risk stratification models and their performance to predict 1- and 3- year mortality and to identify the best risk assessment approach for SSc-PAH.

Methods

We included all patients with SSc diagnosed with PAH by right heart catheterization (RHC) from the European scleroderma trial and research (EUSTAR) database from 2001 to February 2021. PAH was defined as mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) ≥25 mmHg, pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) ≤15mmHg, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >3 Wood units (WU) in the absence of significant interstitial lung disease. We applied four different approaches for risk stratification at time of PAH diagnosis. Risk parameters included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), NT-proBNP or BNP, and echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters with cut-off values based on the 2015 ESC/ERS Guidelines. Model 1 and 2 stratified patients into low, intermediate and high-risk categories; while Model 3 and 4 stratified the patients into four categories (low, intermediate-low, intermediate-high and high).

Model 1: Patients with ≥ 1 high-risk parameter were considered at high risk; with ≥ 1 intermediate-risk parameter at intermediate risk, otherwise at low risk1

Model 2: Each variable was graded from 1 to 3 representing low to high risk. The mean of available risk parameters was rounded to the nearest integer to define the risk category2

Model 3: Equals Model 2, but the intermediate risk group was divided into intermediate-low and intermediate-high based on the mean score3

Model 4: Stratifies patients into four risk categories based on the proportion of low-risk parameters3

We performed analysis of 1- and 3- year mortality in patients with a minimum follow-up of 1 and 3 years, respectively.

Results

Of 911 patients who conducted RHC, 273 (30%) were diagnosed with SSc-PAH according to the inclusion criteria (Table 1). Median follow-up time was 2.8 years (IQR 1.3-5.3). The models varied in their ability to predict mortality (Figure 1). Model 1 and 4 either over- or underestimated mortality. Model 2 stratified patients according to the expected 1-year mortality of <5%, 5-10% and >10% suggested by the ESC/ERS Guidelines. Model 3, which divided the intermediate risk group in two different risk groups, segregated the risk of mortality further within this group.

Table 1.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients segregated by risk stratification (Model 3)

NAll patients (n=273)Low-risk (n=78)Intermediate-low (n=118)Intermediate-high (n=56)High-risk (n=21)Age, years (SD)27365 (10.7)65 (10.3)65 (10.7)65 (10.8)67 (12.8)Female sex, n (%)273230 (84)64 (82)98 (83)48 (86)20 (95)lcSSc, n (%)263221 (84)60 (80)99 (86)47 (90)15 (71)NYHA 3 or 4, n (%)261155 (59)12 (16)75 (68)49 (89)19 (95)NT-proBNP, pg/ml (IQR)1111941 (230-1485)215 (103-377)763 (325-1418)1926 (1051-5681)3314 (1129-6553)6MWD, m (SD)196321 (124.1)404 (119.7)314 (99.9)262 (128.6)215 (96.0)RHC:- mPAP, mmHg (SD)27340 (11.0)35 (8.8)41 (11.5)41 (10.8)45 (11.6)- PAWP, mmHg (SD)2739 (3.2)9 (3.0)9 (3.4)9 (3.2)8 (3.1)- Cardiac index, l/min/m2(SD)2602.8 (0.8)3.2 (0.7)2.7 (0.8)2.6 (1.0)2.0 (0.5)- PVR, WU (SD)2737.4 (4.1)5.3 (2.8)7.9 (4.0)7.9 (4.2)11.3 (4.7)Figure 1.

1- and 3-year mortality according to risk category in the four different models

Conclusion

Model 3 provides signals for a better risk stratification of patients with newly diagnosed SSc-PAH, with progressively increasing mortality across the categories. This may provide guidance for optimized management in clinical practice.

References

[1]Hoffmann-Vold, Rheum 2018

[2]Kylhammar, Eur Heart J 2018

[3]Kylhammar, ERJ open 2021

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all EUSTAR collaborators.

Disclosure of Interests

Hilde Jenssen Bjørkekjær: None declared, Cosimo Bruni Speakers bureau: Actelion, Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Patricia Carreira: None declared, Paolo Airò Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Roche, Janssen, CSL Behring, Carmen Pilar Simeón-Aznar Speakers bureau: Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim and MSD, Consultant of: Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Marie-Elise Truchetet: None declared, Alessandro Giollo: None declared, Alexandra Balbir-Gurman: None declared, Mickael Martin: None declared, Christopher P Denton Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim; Janssen, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim; GSK; Corbus; Sanofi; Roche; Horizon; CSL Behring; Acceleron, Grant/research support from: CSL Behring; Horizon; GSK; Servier, Armando Gabrielli: None declared, Håvard Fretheim Consultant of: Bayer, GSK, Actelion, Imon Barua: None declared, Helle Bitter Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Øyvind Midtvedt: None declared, Kaspar Broch: None declared, Arne Andreassen: None declared, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: Gilead, Abbvie, Behringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Amgen, YL Biologics, Eisai, Astellas, Bristol-Myers, Astra-Zeneca, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taisho, Ayumi, Sanofi, GSK, Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Asahi-Kasei, Abbvie, Chugai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Eisai, Takeda, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Kowa, Behringer-Ingelheim, Gabriela Riemekasten: None declared, Ulf Müller-Ladner: None declared, Marco Matucci-Cerinic: None declared, Ivan Castellví: None declared, Elise Siegert: None declared, Eric Hachulla Speakers bureau: Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi-Genzyme, Grant/research support from: CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi-Genzyme, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Consultant of: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, 4P Science, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Grant/research support from: Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Boehringer Ingelheim, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Consultant of: Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim

AB0675 Health related quality of life in patients with mixed connective tissue disease: A comparison with matched systemic sclerosis patients

Background

Mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, being probably the least common among the connective tissue diseases. Symptoms can be severe and could affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Identification of the burden of MCTD patients is of key importance to provide appropriate pharmacological and non-pharmacological care. No reports on HRQoL have been published in adult patients with MCTD.

Objectives

To perform an explorative study to evaluate HRQoL and its main determinants in MCTD patients, and compare HRQoL between MCTD and matched systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients.

Methods

MCTD patients fulfilling the Kahn criteria and participating in the MCTD prospective follow-up cohort of the Leiden University Medical Center were included. In addition, SSc patients matched for age, gender and disease duration were included for comparison. Data on disease characteristics, functional disability and HRQoL were collected annually for both disease groups. HRQoL was evaluated using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF36) and EuroQol (EQ5D). At baseline, HRQoL, as reflected by SF36 mental component score (MCS), SF 36 physical component score (PCS) and EQ5D were compared between MCTD and SSc patients. For MCTD patients, factors associated with HRQoL at baseline were identified using linear regression and change in HRQoL over 3 years was evaluated using linear mixed models. In addition, characteristics of MCTD patients who showed worsening of MCS and/or had PCS superior to the minimal clinical important difference of three points were identified.

Results

Thirty-four MCTD patients (121 visits; 82% female, mean age 42 years, median disease duration 45 months) and 102 SSc patients (424 visits; 82% female, mean age 45 years, median disease duration 49 months) were included. At baseline, MCTD-patients more often had ILD (47% vs. 34%, p=0.027), cardiac involvement (30% vs. 2%, p<0.001), synovitis (26% vs. 11%, p=0.004) and myositis (15% vs. 1%, p=0.001) compared to SSc patients, whereas SSc patients more often used immunosuppressive treatments except for hydroxychloroquine (MCTD:18% vs. SSc:7%, p=0.007).

Baseline HRQoL in MCTD was comparable to HRQoL in SSc, with mean SF36-PCS of 40.2 (SD:9.1) and mean SF36-MCS of 44.9 (SD:9.9), which is (nearly) one standard deviation lower than the general Dutch population. The SF36 subscore “general health perception” was the most impacted in both groups (MCTD: 38.5 [SD:7.0], SSc: 39.9 [SD:8.9]). The median EQ5DNL was 0.38 (IQR:0.14 – 0.54) and comparable between SSc and MCTD.

At baseline, in MCTD, ILD was significantly associated with SF36-PCS (β:6.98, 95% CI: 1.10 to 12.86) and SF36-MCS (β:-8.10, 95% CI:-14.93 to -1.26). Sclerodactyly was significantly associated with EQ5DNL (β:0.006; 95% CI:0.002 to 0.010) and SF36-PCS (β:0.12, 95% CI:0.03 to 0.21). No other significant associations were identified.

Over time, in MCTD, both the SF36-MCS and SF36-PCS improved significantly (MCS: β:2.35/year [95% CI:0.58 to 4.13], PCS: β:1.34/year [95% CI:0.03 to 2.65), whereas EQ5DNL was stable. Explorative analyses did not reveal a specific clinical characteristic with significant impact on the change of HRQoL over time. With an MCID of 3 points on the MCS and PCS, 7 MCTD-patients worsened on the MCS and 3 on the PCS. Patients who showed worsening of MCS over time tended to be older, more often had ILD, sclerodactyly and GI complaints, and had worse exercise tolerance. All these differences did not reach statistical significance. The patients who decreased PCS more often had ILD (100% vs. 41%, p=0.015), and used glucocorticoids more often (33% vs. 0%, p=0.046), were slightly older and had a worse exercise tolerance as compared to those who showed a stable/improving PCS over time.

Conclusion

Like in SSc, HRQoL is significantly impaired in MCTD, especially the general health perception of patients. Cardiac involvement, ILD, age and worse functional disability might specifically impact HRQoL in MCTD. However, these associations need further evaluations in larger cohorts.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0711 TOLERANCE AND EFFICACY OF TARGETED THERAPIES PRESCRIBED FOR OFF-LABEL INDICATIONS IN REFRACTORY SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES: DATA OF THE FIRST 100 PATIENTS ENROLLED IN THE TATA REGISTRY (TARGETED THERAPY IN AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES)

Background

The low prevalence of systemic autoimmune diseases and the diversity of their clinical manifestations make complex to conduct randomised clinical trials to assess the potential efficacy of targeted treatments.

Objectives

To assess the tolerance and efficacy of targeted therapies prescribed off-label in refractory autoimmune diseases.

Methods

The TATA registry (TArgeted Therapy in Autoimmune Diseases) is a prospective, observational, national and independent cohort follow-up. The inclusion criteria in the registry are as follows: age > 18 years; rare systemic autoimmune disease (systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, systemic scleroderma, inflammatory myopathy, vasculitis) or other refractory rheumatism treated with off-label drugs started after 1st January 2019.

Results

Hundred (100) patients (79 females) were enrolled. The median age was 52.5 years [49;56], the median disease duration before enrolment was 5 years [3;7]. The targeted therapies at enrolment were as follows: JAK/STAT inhibitors (44%), anti-IL6R (22%), anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-IL17 (9%), anti-BAFF (5%), abatacept (5%), other targeted treatments (9%), and combination of targeted treatments (6%). 73% of patients were receiving corticosteroid therapy at enrolment (median dose 10 mg/day). The current median follow-up time is 9 months [8;10].

Safety: 11 serious infections (incidence rate of 14.8 /100 patient-years) and 1 cancer (1.3 cancers/100 patient-years) were observed. Two patients died from severe COVID-19 (2.7 deaths/100 patient-years).

Efficacy: The targeted treatment was considered effective by the clinician in 56% of patients and allowed in responders a median reduction of oral corticosteroids of 15 [9-21] mg/day.

Conclusion

These initial results of the TATA registry confirm the diversity of targeted treatments prescribed off-label in refractory autoimmune diseases and their corticosteroid-sparing effect when effective. Tolerance was acceptable in these refractory patients with a long history of treatment with immunosuppressive drugs.

References

[1]B. Terrier et al., Safety and efficacy of rituximab in systemic lupus erythematosus: results from 136 patients from the French AutoImmunity and Rituximab registry. Arthritis Rheum 62, 2458-2466 (2010).

[2]J. E. Gottenberg et al., Efficacy of rituximab in systemic manifestations of primary Sjogren’s syndrome: results in 78 patients of the AutoImmune and Rituximab registry. Ann Rheum Dis 72, 1026-1031 (2013).

[3]J. E. Gottenberg et al., Risk factors for severe infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with rituximab in the autoimmunity and rituximab registry. Arthritis Rheum 62, 2625-2632 (2010).

[4]F. R. S. S. S. C. I. consortium, contributors, Severity of COVID-19 and survival in patients with rheumatic and inflammatory diseases: data from the French RMD COVID-19 cohort of 694 patients. Ann Rheum Dis, (2020).

[5]R. Felten et al., B-cell targeted therapy is associated with severe COVID-19 among patients with inflammatory arthritides: a 1-year multicentre study in 1116 successive patients receiving intravenous biologics. Ann Rheum Dis 81, 143-145 (2022).

[6]D. J. Wallace et al., Baricitinib for systemic lupus erythematosus: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet 392, 222-231 (2018).

[7]J. J. Paik et al., Study of Tofacitinib in Refractory Dermatomyositis: An Open-Label Pilot Study of Ten Patients. Arthritis Rheumatol 73, 858-865 (2021).

[8]S. Cole et al., Integrative analysis reveals CD38 as a therapeutic target for plasma cell-rich pre-disease and established rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther 20, 85 (2018).

[9]S. J. Bowman et al., Safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ianalumab (VAY736) in patients with primary Sjogren’s syndrome: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b dose-finding trial. Lancet 399, 161-171 (2022).

Acknowledgements

French networks (FAI2R, CRI, IMIDIATE, SFR, SNFMI) focused on rare systemic autoimmune diseases contributed this work by the contribution of network-affiliated physicians.

Disclosure of Interests

Jacques-Eric Gottenberg Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Gilead, Galapagos, Novartis, Lilly Roche Chugai, Sanofi, Janssen, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: BMS.

Lilly and Pfizer for this register (with no access to data)., Aurore Chaudier: None declared, Yves Allenbach: None declared, Arsene Mekinian: None declared, Zahir Amoura: None declared, Patrice cacoub: None declared, Divi Cornec: None declared, Eric Hachulla: None declared, Pierre Quartier: None declared, isabelle melki: None declared, Christophe Richez: None declared, Raphaèle Seror: None declared, Benjamin Terrier: None declared, Valerie Devauchelle-Pensec: None declared, Julien Henry: None declared, MARC GATFOSSE: None declared, LAURENCE BOUILLET: None declared, Emeline GAIGNEUX: None declared, Vincent ANDRE: None declared, Gildas BAULIER: None declared, Aurélie SAUNIER: None declared, Marie Desmurs: None declared, Antoine POULET: None declared, Mathieu ETE: None declared, Marie-Elise Truchetet: None declared, Martin Michaud: None declared, Claire Larroche: None declared, AZEDDINE DELLAL: None declared, Amelie LEURS: None declared, Sebastien Ottaviani: None declared, Hubert NIELLY: None declared, Guillaume VIAL: None declared, Roland JAUSSAUD: None declared, Benedicte ROUVIERE: None declared, Pierre-Yves JEANDEL: None declared, Aurelien GUFFROY: None declared, Anne-Sophie Korganow: None declared, Mathieu JOUVRAY: None declared, alain meyer: None declared, Emmanuel Chatelus: None declared, Christelle Sordet: None declared, Renaud FELTEN: None declared, Jean Sibilia: None declared, Samira AHMED YAHIA: None declared, Jean François Kleinmann: None declared, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: BMS, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB

POS0854 BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENTS WITH IMPROVEMENT OR PROGRESSION OF SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS-ASSOCIATED INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE (SSc-ILD) DURING THE SENSCIS TRIAL

Background

The course of SSc-ILD is variable, and may include periods of stability or even improvement in forced vital capacity (FVC) as well as periods of decline.

Objectives

To investigate the baseline characteristics of patients with SSc-ILD in the placebo group of the SENSCIS trial whose ILD improved or progressed over 52 weeks.

Methods

The SENSCIS trial enrolled patients with SSc with first non-Raynaud symptom in the prior ≤7 years, extent of fibrotic ILD on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) ≥10% and FVC ≥40% predicted. Patients who had been taking a stable dose of mycophenolate for ≥6 months were allowed to participate. We investigated the baseline characteristics of patients in the placebo group whose ILD showed improvement (absolute increase in FVC ≥5% predicted), stability (absolute decline or increase in FVC <5% predicted), progression (absolute decline in FVC ≥5% predicted), or significant progression (absolute decline in FVC ≥10% predicted) over 52 weeks. P-values based on ANOVA or Chi-squared tests were used to compare the baseline characteristics of the patients who showed improvement, stability and progression.

Results

Of 288 patients, 21 (7.3%) showed improvement, 166 (57.6%) stability, and 101 (35.1%) ILD progression, of whom 37 (12.8% of all patients) had significant ILD progression over 52 weeks. Most baseline characteristics were similar across the groups based on progression, but there were differences in DLCO % predicted (p=0.02) and in the proportion of patients taking mycophenolate (p=0.09) among patients who showed improvement, stability and progression (Table 1).

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of patients in the placebo group of the SENSCIS trial in subgroups based on course of SSc-ILD over 52 weeks.

Improvement (n=21)Stability (n=166)Progression (n=101)Significant progression (n=37) (subset of Progression)P-value for comparison of Improvement, Stability, ProgressionAge, years55.9 ± 12.053.2 ± 12.653.1 ± 12.855.3 ± 11.80.64Female71.475.970.373.00.59Years since first non-Raynaud symptom3.7 ± 1.73.5 ± 1.73.5 ± 1.93.6 ± 1.90.81Diffuse cutaneous SSc47.649.453.556.80.78Anti-topoisomerase I antibody positive61.958.466.356.80.44High sensitivity C-reactive protein, mg/L5.1 ± 8.97.8 ± 23.05.6 ± 9.94.2 ± 4.40.62Modified Rodnan skin score9.3 ± 7.310.5 ± 8.411.9 ± 9.712.7 ± 11.30.29History of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)76.272.978.278.40.62Extent (%) of fibrotic ILD on HRCT*26.4 ± 16.235.5 ± 20.436.6 ± 21.840.8 ± 23.50.12Presence of honeycombing on HRCT14.316.815.526.50.94Presence of ground glass opacities on HRCT81.086.689.784.80.51FVC % predicted77.1 ± 18.071.7 ± 17.273.3 ± 15.274.2 ± 14.80.33DLco % predicted61.5 ± 14.953.4 ± 14.851.1 ± 15.147.3 ± 14.50.02Taking mycophenolate71.448.245.535.10.09

Data are mean ± SD or % at baseline. Missing data were excluded. *Assessed visually in whole lung to nearest 5%. The assessment did not include pure (non-fibrotic) ground glass opacities.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that in the SENSCIS trial, patients who had higher DLCO % predicted or who were taking mycophenolate at baseline were less likely to show progression of SSc-ILD over 52 weeks.

Acknowledgements

The SENSCIS trial was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Oliver Distler was a member of the SENSCIS trial Steering Committee.

Disclosure of Interests

Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Paid instructor for: Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eric Hachulla Speakers bureau: Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Chugai; and research funding from CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi-Genzyme, Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi-Genzyme, Ariane Herrick Speakers bureau: Janssen, Consultant of: Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Camurus, CSL Behring, Gesynta, Grant/research support from: Gesynta, Teng Moua: None declared, Gabriela Riemekasten Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Madelon Vonk Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, Janssen, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ferrer, Galapagos, Janssen, Alexandra James Employee of: Alexandra James is an employee of Elderbrook solutions GmbH that is contracted by Boehringer Ingelheim, Margarida Alves Employee of: Margarida Alves is employee of Boehringer Ingelheim, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: OD has/had relationships with the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three calendar years:

Speaker fee: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape

, Consultant of: OD has/had relationships with the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three calendar years:

Consultancy fee: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, 4P Science, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur

OD has/had relationships with the following companies in the area of potential treatments for arthritides in the last three calendar years:

Consultancy fee: Abbvie

, Grant/research support from: OD has/had relationships with the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three calendar years:

Research Grants: Boehringer Ingelheim, Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe

POS0140 PREDICTING OUTCOMES IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: STRATIFICATION BY AUTO-ANTIBODIES OUTPERFORMS CUTANEOUS SUBSETTING IN THE EUSTAR COHORT

Background

Risk-stratification is key in a heterogeneous disease like systemic sclerosis (SSc). Until now, SSc patients are stratified according to the extent of skin involvement into limited cutaneous, diffuse cutaneous and sine scleroderma subtypes. However, this classification remains inaccurate to capture disease heterogeneity. Autoantibodies are found in more than 90% of the patients and can be detected before onset of the disease. Among them, three predominant and specific antibodies are used: anti-centromere, anti-Scl70 and RNA polymerase III antibodies.

Objectives

To compare the performances of stratification into LeRoy’s cutaneous subtypes versus autoantibody status in SSc versus combination of cutaneous subtypes and autoantibodies status.

Methods

Patients from the EUSTAR database were classified either as (i) limited cutaneous, diffuse cutaneous or sine scleroderma (based on the recording made by the treating physician) or (ii) according to autoantibodies with the following subclassifications: (1) no specific autoantibodies, (2) isolated ANA, (3) anti-centromere antibodies, (4) anti-Scl70 antibodies and (5) anti-RNA polymerase III antibodies or (iii) according to combination of cutaneous subset and auto-antibodies. The respective performance of each model to predict overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease progression and different organ involvements was assessed and the three models were compared by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC 95%CI) and the net reclassification improvement (NRI). Missing data were imputed through multiple imputation using chain equations.

Results

In all, 10’711 patients were included: 84.6% females, mean age: 54.4±13.8 years, mean disease duration: 7.9±8.2 years. In the prospective analysis (n= 6’467 to 7’829 according to the outcome), after a mean follow-up of 56 months and a mean of three visits per patient, we did not identify any difference in AUC between the cutaneous-based model and the antibody-based model for prediction of OS and disease progression. However, the NRI showed a significant improvement in prediction of OS (0.57 [0.46-0.71] vs. 0.29 [0.19-0.39]) and disease progression (0.36 [0.29-0.46] vs. 0.21 [0.14-0.28]) at 4 years using the antibody-based model. Regarding prediction of each organ involvement in longitudinal analyses, the antibody-based model showed better performance than the cutaneous-one for renal crisis (AUC: 0.719 [0.696-0.742] vs. 0.664 [0.643-0.685]), with the highest association observed with anti-RNA polymerase III (OR: 7.47 [1.63-34.24], p= 0.010). Similarly, the antibody-based model was better than the cutaneous model in predicting lung fibrosis (AUC 0.719 [0.715-724] vs. 0.653 [0.647-0.659]) and restrictive lung fibrosis (AUC 0.759 [0.749-0.766] vs. 0.711 [0.701-0.721]) which were both associated with anti-Scl70 antibodies (OR: 9.29 [8.17-10.55] and 7.92 [5.37-11.69], respectively, p<0.0001 for both). Although there was no difference in the AUC to predict digital ulcers, NRI showed an improvement using the antibody-based model (0.31 [0.29-0.33] vs. 0.24 [0.22-0.26]) with the highest association with anti-Scl70 antibodies (OR: 3.57 [2.68-4.75], p<0.0001). The two models had similar performances in assessing occurrence of intestinal involvement, heart dysfunction or elevated sPAP. Combining both antibody status and cutaneous subtype did not improve the performance of our models. In the exploratory analysis, there was no change using modified Rodnan skin score to define cutaneous form.

Conclusion

Auto-antibody status outperforms the common cutaneous subsetting to risk-stratify SSc patients in the EUSTAR cohort. This easily performed subclassification using autoantibodies specific status can be used by the clinicians to risk-stratify their patients and to adapt disease monitoring in routine practice.

Disclosure of Interests

Muriel Elhai Speakers bureau: BMS outside of the submitted work, Marouane Boubaya: None declared, Nanthara Sritharan: None declared, Alexandra Balbir-Gurman: None declared, Elise Siegert: None declared, Eric Hachulla: None declared, Jeska de Vries-Bouwstra: None declared, Gabriela Riemekasten: None declared, Jörg H.W. Distler: None declared, Douglas Veale: None declared, Edoardo Rosato: None declared, Francesco Del Galdo: None declared, Fabian A Mendoza: None declared, Daniel Furst Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Grant/research support from: Emerald, Kadmon, PICORI, Pfizer,Prometheus, Talaris, Mitsubishi, Carlos De la Puente Bujidos: None declared, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Consultant of: Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Armando Gabrielli: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Consultant of: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, 4P Science, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Grant/research support from: Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Boehringer Ingelheim, Coralie Bloch-Queyrat: None declared, Yannick Allanore Consultant of: Actelion, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Inventiva, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Grant/research support from: Actelion, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Inventiva, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis

POS0063 PROGRESSIVE INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE IS FREQUENT ALSO IN LATE DISEASE STAGES IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS PATIENTS FROM EUSTAR

Background

Short disease duration is a predictor for progressive systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD), but studies assessing ILD progression in later disease stages are lacking. To individually tailor management of ILD in SSc patients in clinical practice it is, however, of high importance to understand disease behaviour also in patients with late disease.

Objectives

Analyse ILD progression in SSc-ILD patients from the EUSTAR cohort segregated by subgroups of disease duration.

Methods

We segregated SSc-ILD patients into four categories of disease duration (≤3 years, >3- ≤7 years, >7- ≤15 years and >15 years after onset of Raynaud’s phenomenon). We assessed progressive ILD, defined as forced vital capacity (FVC) decline >10% or FVC decline ≥10% and FVC decline 5–10% and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) decline ≥15% (composite decline) over the first and second 12+/-3 months period after first registration (baseline) into EUSTAR. Clinical characteristics, pulmonary involvement, treatment at first registration and ILD progression were evaluated by descriptive statistics.

Results

In total, 2258 SSc-ILD patients were included, with 469 (20.8%) having a disease duration ≤3 years, 550 (24.4%) between >3- ≤7 years, 752 (33.3%) between >7- ≤15 years and 488 (21.6%) of >15 years (Table 1). Baseline characteristics and treatment patterns differed between the four subgroups, with more younger male patients with diffuse cutaneous SSc, anti-topoisomerase I antibody and higher Rodnan skin score having ≤3 years disease duration. Lung function with FVC and DLCO were similar between the four groups (Table 1). Notably, in the first and second 12+/-3 months periods after first registration in the EUSTAR database, there were no significant difference in FVC decline >10% or composite FVC and DLCO decline within the four subgroups. For example, patients with disease duration >7- ≤15 years and >15 years frequently showed disease progression of FVC >10%: 41/347 (11.8%) and 32/228 (14%) compared to 38/244 (15.6%) and 33/273 (15.6%) for disease duration ≤3 years and >3- ≤7 years (P=0.529), respectively (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Demographics and baseline clinical characteristics of EUSTAR patients

Disease duration≤ years(n=460)>3- ≤7 years(n=550)>7- ≤15 years(n=752)>15 years(n=488)p-valueAge, years (SD)55 (13.5)55 (14.1)57 (13.1)61 (11.5)<0.001Male, n (%)123 (26.2)115 (20.9)112 (14.9)38 (7.8)<0.001DcSSc, n (%)228 (56.4)262 (45.8)311 (45.4)163 (31.2)<0.001ATA, n (%)236 (53.4)293 (55.9)374 (52.8)218 (48.0)0.099mRSS, mean (SD)12.3(10.1)10.4 (8.3)9.4 (8.1)8.7 (7.7)<0.001GERD, n/N (%)273 (58.7)353 (64.4)482 (64.4)344 (71.2)0.001ESR, mean (SD)26.9(21.7)24.2 (19.5)26.2 (19.9)28.3 (21.2)0.022MMF, n/N (%)33 (16.6)43 (25.2)37 (20.4)14 (9.3)0.002MTX, n/N (%)19 (10)17 (10.1)19 (10.6)8 (5.2)0.296Any IS, n/N (%)81 (38.6)89 (47.1)82 (40.8)46 (28.7)0.006FVC % pred, mean (SD)86 (20.9)87 (21.6)86 (21.4)87 (22.8)0.770DLCO % pred, mean (SD)58 (19.3)59 (19.3)59 (19.9)58 (19.7)0.405NYHA class 3&4, n (%)84 (18.6)78 (14.6)125 (17.5)22.6 (7.0)0.090Figure 1.

FVC decline >10% and composite FVC and DLCO decline in the first and second 12+/-3 months within the four subgroups segregated by disease duration

Conclusion

It was long believed that ILD burned out in late disease stages. In our analysis of ILD progression by four disease duration categories, we showed that ILD frequently progressed also in late disease stages. This has important implications for clinical practise, as SSc patients need to be regularly monitored for ILD progression independent of disease duration.

Disclosure of Interests

Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Consultant of: Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Cathrine Brunborg: None declared, Paolo Airò Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Roche, Jannsen, CSL Behring, Lidia P. Ananyeva Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, László Czirják Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion (now GSK), MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion (now GSK), MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Serena Guiducci: None declared, Eric Hachulla Speakers bureau: GSK, Roche-Chugai, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: CSL Behring, GSK, Roche-Chugai, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi Genzyme, Mengtao Li: None declared, Carina Mihai Speakers bureau: MEDtalks Switzerland, Mepha, Grant/research support from: Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Gabriela Riemekasten Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Petros Sfikakis Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Gabriele Valentini Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: Sanofi/BMS, Otylia Kowal-Bielecka Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences, Janssen-Cilag, MEDAC, MSD, Abbvie, Sandoz, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Health Care system Navigator, CSL Behring, MSD, Novartis, Grant/research support from: CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbvie, Roche, MEDAC, Yannick Allanore Speakers bureau: Boehringer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Boehringer, Bayer, Astra-Zeneca, Prometheus, Sanofi, Genentech/Roche, Boehringer, Grant/research support from: Alpine Immunosciences, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Medsenic, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Consultant of: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, 4P Science, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Grant/research support from: Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Boehringer Ingelheim

OP0158 COHORT ENRICHMENT STRATEGIES FOR PROGRESSIVE INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS FROM EUSTAR

Background

Enrichment strategies from clinical trials for progressive systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) have been partly successful but have not been tested in a real life cohort.

Objectives

Analyse the efficacy, representativeness and feasibility of enrichment strategies in SSc-ILD patients from the EUSTAR cohort.

Methods

We applied the inclusion criteria of major recent SSc-ILD trials (focuSSced, SLS II and SENSCIS) in SSc-ILD patients and assessed progressive ILD, defined as absolute change in forced vital capacity (FVC) and as significant progression (FVC decline >10%) over time. Data were compared to all patients and patients not fulfilling any inclusion criteria.

Results

In total, 2258 SSc-ILD patients were included, with 31.2% meeting SENSCIS, 5.8% SLS II, 1.6% focuSSced criteria and 1529 (67.7%) not meeting any criteria (Table 1). In the first 12+/-3 months, a slow FVC% decline of –0.1% was seen in the total, unselected cohort and in patients fulfilling SENSCIS criteria. Patients fulfilling criteria from focuSSced showed a strong FVC decline of –3.7%. Notably, patients enriched for SLS II criteria showed FVC improvement of +2.3% (Figure 1). Similarly, compared to the total unselected cohort, the number of significant progressive events was numerically higher in patients fulfilling focuSSced criteria, the same for SENSCIS criteria and even slightly lower for patients fulfilling the SLS2 criteria.

Table 1.

Demographics and baseline clinical characteristics of EUSTAR patients

Not fulfilling any criteria (n=1529)focuSSced (n=36)SLS II (n=132)SENSCIS (n=704)Age, years (SD)58.4 (2.9)51.5 (12.2)†51.2 (12.7) †54.2 (13.8) †Male, n (%)231 (15.1)7 (19)35 (27)**156 (21)*Disease duration, months (SD)156.3 (99.4)16.1 (13.9)†40.7 (25.2) †39.4 (23.9) †DcSSc, n (%)597 (43.8)36 (100) †85 (65) †35 (52) †ATA, n (%)735 (51.1)24 (67)*85 (69) †370 (56)mRSS, mean (SD)9.5 (8.3)21 (6.5)*13 (9.6)*11 (9.2)GERD, n (%)1002 (65.9)25 (69)92 (70)430 (62)ESR, mean (SD)27 (20.5)43.1 (23) †29.6 (19.6) †24.7 (20.7)MMF, n (%)75 (16.5)0 (0) †0 (0) †52 (22) †MTX, n (%)42 (9.2)0 (0) †2 (5)20 (9)FVC % predicted, mean (SD)85.7 (22.5)88 (13.6)*66 (9.1) †88 (19.8)DLCO% predicted, mean (SD)58.9 (21.5)61 (12.7)49(14.6)†59 (14.2)NYHA class, n (%)3261 (17.8)6 (19)28 (21)72 (10)*440 (2.7)0 (0)3 (2)4 (1)*

*P-value: 0.001–0.05; †P<0.001, between focuSSced, SENSCIS or SLS compared with not fulfilling any study criteria.

In the second 12 months period, SENSCIS enriched patients had a further absolute FVC% decline as described for the total cohort. In contrast, patients fulfilling the focuSSced and SLS II inclusion criteria showed numerical improvement of lung function in the second period (Figure 1). There were no significant associations of enrichment criteria and ILD progression in the second period.

Over the mean observation period of 2.3 years, patients not fulfilling any inclusion criteria showed the same FVC decline of –0.9 (12.1) as observed for the total cohort (–0.9% (12.6)). There were numerical differences in FVC changes in the enriched patient cohorts, varying from –2.8% FVC decline in patients fulfilling the focuSSced criteria to +3.4% FVC improvement with SLS II criteria.

Conclusion

Application of enrichment criteria from previous clinical trials showed enrichment for progression with variable success but led to selected patient populations reducing feasibility of recruitment. These findings are important for future clinical trial design and interpretation of the results of published trials.

Acknowledgements

We thank all EUSTAR collaborators.

Disclosure of Interests

Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Consultant of: Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Cathrine Brunborg: None declared, Paolo Airò Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Roche, Jannsen, CSL Behring, Lidia P. Ananyeva Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, László Czirják Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion (now GSK), MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion (now GSK), MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Serena Guiducci: None declared, Eric Hachulla Speakers bureau: GSK, Roche-Chugai, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: CSL Behring, GSK, Roche-Chugai, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi Genzyme, Mengtao Li: None declared, Carina Mihai Speakers bureau: MEDtalks Switzerland, Mepha, Grant/research support from: Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Gabriela Riemekasten Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Petros Sfikakis Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Gabriele Valentini Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: BMS, Otylia Kowal-Bielecka Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences, Janssen-Cilag, MEDAC, MSD, Abbvie, Sandoz, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Health Care system Navigator, CSL Behring, MSD, Novartis, Grant/research support from: CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbvie, Roche, MEDAC, Yannick Allanore Speakers bureau: Boehringer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Boehringer, Bayer, Astra-Zeneca, Prometheus, Sanofi, Genentech/Roche, Boehringer, Grant/research support from: Alpine Immunosciences, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Medsenic, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Consultant of: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, 4P Science, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Grant/research support from: Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Boehringer Ingelheim

Caractéristiques cliniques de la Covid-19 chez les enfants et adolescents atteints de maladies rhumatismales et inflammatoires : données de la cohorte française RMD COVID-19 de 95 patients

Introduction

Patients et méthodes

Résultats

Conclusion

Electro-clinical presentation of hereditary transthyretin related amyloidosis when presenting as a polyneuropathy of unknown origin in northern France

INTRODUCTION

Hereditary transthyretin related amyloidosis (h-ATTR) classically presents as a small fiber neuropathy with positive family history, but can also be revealed by various other types of peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the initial electro-clinical presentation of patients from in a single region (northern France) of h-ATTR when it presents as a polyneuropathy of unknown origin.

METHOD

We reviewed the records of patients referred to two neuromuscular centers from northern France with a peripheral neuropathy of unknown origin who were subsequently diagnosed with h-ATTR.

RESULTS

Among 26 h-ATTR patients (10 Val30Met, 16 Ser77Tyr), only 14 patients had a suspicious family history (53.8%). The electro-clinical presentation was mostly a large-fiber sensory motor polyneuropathy (92.3%), which could be symmetric or not, length-dependent or not, or associated with nerve entrapment or not. Demyelinating signs were observed in 17 patients (70.8%), among whom nine fulfilled the criteria for a definite diagnosis of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (37.5%).

CONCLUSION

h-ATTR may have a wide spectrum of clinical profiles, and should be considered in the screening of polyneuropathies of unknown origin.

OP0284 OUTCOME OF COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC AND INFLAMMATORY DISEASES TREATED WITH RITUXIMAB: DATA FROM DE FRENCH RMD COVID-19 COHORT

Background:

Various observations have suggested that the course of the COVID-19 infection may be less favorable in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMD) receiving rituximab (RTX).

Objectives:

To investigate whether treatment with RTX is associated with severe infection and death.

Methods:

We performed an observational, multicenter, French national cohort study querying the French RMD COVID-19 cohort, including highly suspected/confirmed iRMD-COVID-19 patients. The primary endpoint was to assess the severity rate of COVID-19. Severe disease was defined by hospitalization in intensive care unit or death. The secondary objectives were to analyze death rate and length of hospital stay. Two control groups were considered for comparison with RTX treated patients: a first group including all non-RTX treated iRMD patients and a second consisting on RTX untreated iRMD patients with diseases for which RTX is a recognized therapeutic option. Adjusting on potential confounding factors was performed by using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) propensity score method.

Results:

We collected a total of 1090 records. Patients were mainly females (67.3%, 734/1090) with a mean age of 55.2±16.4 years, and 51.1% (557/1090) were over the age of 55. Almost 70% of the population had at least one comorbidity (756/1090). A total of 63 patients were treated with RTX, mainly for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (31/63, 49.2%). RTX treated patients were more likely to be males, with older age, higher prevalence of comorbidities and corticosteroid use. The control population consisted on 1027 non-RTX treated iRMD patients, and 495 RTX untreated iRMD patients with diseases for which RTX is a recognized therapeutic option.

Of the 1,090 patients, 137 developed severe disease (12.6%). After adjusting on potential confounding factors (age, sex, arterial hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, body mass index, interstitial lung disease, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, corticosteroid use, chronic renal failure and the underlying disease), severe disease was confirmed to be observed more frequently in patients receiving RTX compared to all RTX untreated iRMD patients (effect size, ES 3.26, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.66 to 6.40, p<0.001) and the subgroup of untreated RTX patients with diseases eligible for RTX therapy (ES 2.62, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.09, p=0.005). Patients who developed a severe disease had a more recent rituximab infusion compared to patients with mild or moderate disease. Indeed, the time between the last infusion of rituximab and the first symptoms of COVID-19 was significantly shorter in patients who developed a severe form of COVID-19 (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Distribution (Tukey’s box plot) of Lag time between last infusion of Rituximab according to disease severity. P-Values for comparison between disease severity with Kruskal Wallis test are reported; P-Value<0.001 for either post-hoc comparison of severe disease group with moderate or mild disease group (calculated using Dunn’s test).

Eighty-nine patients in our cohort died, resulting in an overall death rate of 8.2%. Death rate was numerically higher in RTX treated patients (13/63, 20.6%) compared to all RTX untreated iRMDs patients (76/1027, 7.4%) and the subgroup of untreated RTX patients with diseases eligible for RTX therapy (49/495, 9.9%). After considering the previously described confounding factors, the risk of death was not significantly increased in patients treated with RTX compared to all RTX untreated iRMDs patients (ES 1.32, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.19, p=0.53) (Table 2) and the subgroup of untreated RTX patients with diseases eligible for RTX therapy (ES 1.48, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.20, p=0.32). In line with a more severe COVID-19 disease, the length of hospital stay was markedly longer in patients treated with RTX compared to both untreated RTX patient groups.

Conclusion:

RTX therapy is associated with a more severe COVID-19 infection. RTX will have to be applied with particular caution in patients with iRMDs.

Acknowledgements:

Muriel Herasse played a major role in collecting the missing data of the cohort.

We thank Julien Labreuche (biostatistician, CHU-Lille) for the help in the statistical analysis.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS0317 THE PERFORMANCE OF DIFFUSING CAPACITY FOR MONOXIDE CARBON (DLCO) AND FORCED VITAL CAPACITY (FVC) IN PREDICTING THE ONSET OF SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS (SSc)-INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE (ILD) IN THE EUROPEAN SCLERODERMA TRIALS AND RESEARCH (EUSTAR) DATABASE

Background:

In SSc, ILD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. High resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is the gold standard for the diagnosis. Predictors of ILD onset are eagerly awaited to improve SSc-ILD management. Pulmonary function test (PFTs) are routinely performed to measure lung function changes.

Objectives:

Our aim was to investigate the performance of DLCO (diffusing capacity of lung carbon monoxide) and FVC (forced vital capacity) in predicting the development of SSc-ILD.

Methods:

The longitudinal data of DLCO, FVC and ILD on HRCT of SSc patients from the EUSTAR database were evaluated at baseline (t0), after 12 (±4) (t1) and 24 (±4) (t2) months. Patients with negative HRCT for any sign of ILD both at t0 and t1 were included. Patients who presented or developed pulmonary hypertension during the study period were excluded. At baseline, demographic data, disease duration from Raynaud’s onset, disease subsets, autoantibodies and other laboratory and instrumental data were recorded.

Results:

474/17805 patients were eligible for the study (403 females, 71 males): 26.0% dcSSc, 58.3% lcSSc, 220 (48.0%) patients with positive anticentromere antibodies (ACA) and 117 (25.4%) with positive antitopoisomerase I antibodies (Topo-I abs). Among all enrolled patients, 46 (9.7%) developed HRCT signs of ILD at t2. Patients with Topo-I abs showed an association with ILD development at t2 (16.7% vs 7.8%, p=0.0031), contrarily ACA positive patients were negatively associated with ILD appearance after 2 years of follow-up (4.4% vs 14.4%, p=0.0001). Positive t2 HRCT patients had a significant lower value of DLCO and FVC at all three assessments when compared to patients with a negative HRCT at t2 (Table 1) and both t0 DLCO and FVC values negatively correlated with ILD development (Table 1). The mean t0 to t1 change (Δ) of DLCO in patients with negative t2 HRTC and positive t2 HRCT were -0.5 (±12.6) and -1.0 (±15.1), respectively. The mean t0 to t1 ΔFVC in patients with negative t2 HRTC and positive t2 HRCT were -0.2 (±10.6) and 0.1 (±11.5), respectively. None of them predicted the appearance of ILD at t2 (ΔDLCO: OR (IC) 0.997 (0.97-1.02), p=0.8024; ΔFVC OR (IC) 1.002 (0.97-1.03), p=0.8664). The data showed an association between t0 DLCO value<80% and ILD appearance after 2 years of follow-up [OR(IC): 3.09(1.49-6.40), p=0.0023]. Such association was not observed for t0 FVC value<80% [OR(IC): 1.95(0.81-4.68), p=0.1329]. The predictive capability of t0 DLCO<80% was moderate but stronger than FVC<80% [AU ROC: 0.62 (0.56-0.69), 0.53 (0.48-0.59) respectively, p=0.0205].

Conclusion:

Our data suggest that an impaired baseline DLCO (<80%) may have a predictive value for the development of ILD on HRCT after 2 years of follow-up. Further rigorous prospective studies are warranted to understand the role of DLCO evaluation in the course of SSc.

Table 1.

DLCO and FVC values at t0, t1 and t2 values in patients with positive or negative HRCT for ILD at t2 and their statistical differences.

Patients without ILD at t2 (mean±SD)Patients with ILD at t2 (mean±SD)OR (95%CL)p-valueDLCO at t079.0 ± 16.669.9 ± 17.40.97 (0.95 - 0.99)0.0006DLCO at t178.4 ± 16.868.9 ± 18.60.97 (0.95 - 0.98)0.0005DLCO at t278.0 ± 17.065.1 ± 19.10.95 (0.93 - 0.97)<0.0001FVC at t0102.2 ± 17.394.6 ± 16.20.97 (0.96 - 0.99)0.0052FVC at t1101.9 ± 17.994.7 ± 16.50.98 (0.96 - 0.99)0.0092FVC at t2101.6 ± 17.694.5 ± 20.00.98 (0.96 - 1)0.0126

Disclosure of Interests:

Gemma Lepri: None declared, Cosimo Bruni Speakers bureau: CB reports personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: CB reports personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Eli Lilly, grants from European Scleroderma Trial and Research (EUSTAR) group, grants from New Horizon Fellowship, grants from Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM), grants from Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sull’Artrite (FIRA), outside the submitted work, Lorenzo Tofani: None declared, Alberto Moggi Pignone: None declared, Martina Orlandi: None declared, Tomasetti Sara Speakers bureau: Speaker’s fees for Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, Mike Hughes: None declared, Francesco Del Galdo: None declared, Rosaria Irace: None declared, Oliver Distler Grant/research support from: OD (last three years) has/had consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications from (last three years): Abbvie, Acceleron Pharma, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx Therapeutics, Baecon Discovery, Blade Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Galapagos NV, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Horizon (Curzion) Pharmaceuticals, Inventiva, iQvia, Italfarmaco, iQone, Kymera Therapeutics, Lilly, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur, Target Bioscience and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Valeria Riccieri: None declared, Yannick Allanore Speakers bureau: YA received personal fees from Boehringer, Sanofi, Menarini and Medsenic and grants from Alpine with regards to the management of systemic sclerosis, Grant/research support from: YA received personal fees from Boehringer, Sanofi, Menarini and Medsenic and grants from Alpine with regards to the management of systemic sclerosis, Ana Maria Gheorghiu: None declared, Elise Siegert: None declared, Jeska de Vries-Bouwstra: None declared, Eric Hachulla: None declared, Mohammed Tikly: None declared, Nemanja Damjanov: None declared, Francois Spertini: None declared, Luc Mouthon: None declared, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: AMHV: received consulting fees from Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche; and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim., Consultant of: AMHV: received consulting fees from Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche; and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim., Grant/research support from: AMHV: received consulting fees from Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche; and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim., Armando Gabrielli: None declared, Serena Guiducci: None declared, Marco Matucci-Cerinic Speakers bureau: has received consulting fees or honorarium from Actelion, Janssen, Inventiva, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer, CSL Behring, Corbus, Galapagos, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Regeneron, Acceleron, MSD, Chemomab, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: has received consulting fees or honorarium from Actelion, Janssen, Inventiva, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer, CSL Behring, Corbus, Galapagos, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Regeneron, Acceleron, MSD, Chemomab, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Daniel Furst: None declared, Silvia Bellando Randone: None declared

Activités de recours et de recherche d’un service de Médecine Interne : une place pour la télémédecine, au-delà de la pandémie COVID-19 ?

Introduction

Les services de Médecine Interne mènent une importante activité de recours expert et de recherche, grevée par plusieurs obstacles. L’activité d’avis spécialisés est chronophage, non valorisée, et limitée par l’impossibilité d’échanger simplement les éléments du dossier médical. L’activité de recherche clinique est limitée par la fréquence des visites protocolaires. L’objectif de ce travail est de déterminer si la télémédecine (TLM) peut contribuer à résoudre ces difficultés.

Patients et méthodes

Concernant l’activité de recours, nous avons demandé aux médecins de déclarer les avis donnés à l’aide d’un formulaire standardisé, afin de déterminer s’ils validaient les critères de téléconsultation (TLC) ou de télé-expertise (TLE). Concernant l’activité de recherche, nous avons remis aux investigateurs et à 50 patients un questionnaire sur l’acceptabilité de TLC protocolaires.

Résultats

Concernant l’activité de recours, on dénombrait 120 avis (soit 21 h) hebdomadaires, dont 29 % aux patients et 69 % à des médecins. Soixante et un pour cent des avis aux patients validaient les critères de TLC ; 18 % des avis aux médecins ceux de TLE. Concernant l’activité de recherche, 70 % des investigateurs considéraient la fréquence des visites comme limitant les inclusions ; près de la moitié des patients serait favorable au recours à des TLC à la place (40 %) ou en plus (56 %) des visites présentielles. En termes de facturation, la TLM représente un revenu potentiel de 300 € hebdomadaires pour le TLE et 616€ hebdomadaires pour le TLC.

Conclusion

Si le recours à la TLM comme procédure dégradée au présentiel s’est démocratisé avec la pandémie, les solutions qu’elle apporte aux difficultés rencontrées dans les activités d’avis et de recherche peuvent contribuer à intégrer pleinement son usage dans le suivi standard des patients. Si tel était le cas, on pourrait tout à fait imaginer avec ce budget (47 632 €/an) pouvoir financer un praticien hospitalier supplémentaire à temps partiel.

AB0401 CAN DUAL-ENERGY CT LUNG PERFUSION DETECT ABNORMALITIES AT THE LEVEL OF LUNG CIRCULATION IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS (SSC)? PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE IN 101 PATIENTS

Background:

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is an autoimmune disorder that is characterized by a interplay of vascular abnormalities, immune system activation and an uncontrolled fibrotic response associated with interstitial lung disease affecting about 40% of patients. Identification of ILD relies on high-resolution CT that identify features suggestive of the histologic patterns of SSc(1). CT is used to determine pattern and extent of ILD and participates in the prediction of ILD progression(2).

All group of pulmonary hypertension (PH) may occur with an overall prevalence reported in up to one fifth of patient. Whereas extensive SSc-ILD can be responsible for PH, PH can also be seen as a consequence of myocardial abnormalities or as primarily affecting small pulmonary arteries and classified as pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Dual-energy CT introduction offers perspectives in the evaluation of SSc-related pulmonary manifestations. While these are not strictly perfusion images, they have been reported as adequate surrogate markers of lung perfusion (3). In the field of PH, detection of perfusion defects highly concordant with V/Q scintigraphic findings has been reported in the diagnostic approach of CTEPH but also in the differential diagnosis between PAH and peripheral forms of CTEPH (4).

Objectives:

To investigate lung perfusion abnormalities in patients with SSc.

Methods:

The study population included 101 patients who underwent dual-energy CT (DECT) angiography in the follow-up of SSc. CT examinations were obtained on a 3rd-generation dual-source CT system with reconstruction of morphologic and perfusion images. All patients underwent pulmonary function tests within two months of the follow-up CT scan. Fifteen patients had right heart catheterization-proven PH.

Results:

Our population included patients without SSc lung involvement (Group 1; n=37), patients with SSc-related ILD (Group 2; n=56) of variable extent (Group 2a: ≤10%: n=17; Group 2b: between 11-50%: n=31; Group 2c: >50%: n=8) and patients with PVOD/PCH (Group 3; n=8). Lung perfusion was abnormal in 8 patients in G 1 (21.6%), 14 patients in G 2 (25%) and 7 patients in G 3 (87.5%). Perfusion changes were mainly composed of bilateral perfusion defects, including patchy, PE-type perfusion defects and areas of hypoperfusion of variable size. In G 1 and G 2a (n=54): (a) patients with abnormal lung perfusion (n=14) had a significantly higher proportion of NYHA III/IV scores of dyspnea (p=0.031), a shorter mean walking distance at the 6MWT (p=0.042) and a trend towards lower mean DLCO% (p=0.055) when compared to patients with normal lung perfusion (n=40); (b) a negative albeit weak correlation was found between the iodine concentration in both lungs and the DLCO% (r=-0.27; p=0.059) whereas no correlation was found with PAPs (r=0.16; p=0.29) and walking distance during the 6MWT (r=-0.029; p=0.84).

Conclusion:

DECT lung perfusion provides complementary information to HRCT scans, depicting perfusion changes in SSc patients with normal or minimally infiltrated lung parenchyma.

References:

[1]Kim EA, Lee KS, Johkoh T, Kim TS, Suh GY, Kwon OJ, et al. Interstitial lung diseases associated with collagen vascular diseases: radiologic and histopathologic findings. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc. 2002 Oct;22 Spec No:S151-165.

[2]Goh NSL, Desai SR, Veeraraghavan S, Hansell DM, Copley SJ, Maher TM, et al. Interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis: a simple staging system. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008 Jun 1;177(11):1248–54.

[3]Fuld MK, Halaweish AF, Haynes SE, Divekar AA, Guo J, Hoffman EA. Pulmonary perfused blood volume with dual-energy CT as surrogate for pulmonary perfusion assessed with dynamic multidetector CT. Radiology. 2013 Jun;267(3):747–56.

[4]Giordano J, Khung S, Duhamel A, Hossein-Foucher C, Bellèvre D, Lamblin N, et al. Lung perfusion characteristics in pulmonary arterial hypertension and peripheral forms of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: Dual-energy CT experience in 31 patients. Eur Radiol. 2017 Apr;27(4):1631–9.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS1227 IMPACT OF A PRE-EXISTING INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE ON SEVERITY OF COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES

Background:

COVID19 due to SARS-CoV-2 infection implies an important anti-viral immune response leading to a major inflammatory syndrome with increased pro-inflammatory cytokine levels (i.e. the cytokine storm paradigm). The impact of a preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) on the morbi-mortality of COVID-19 is unclear. An increased mortality rate has been identified in studies that included a limited number of patients with ILD from various etiologies. To date, no studies have investigated the severity of COVID-19 in patients with preexisting ILD in a large population of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD-ILD). Since March 18th, 2020, the French RMD COVID19 dataset (NCT04353609) includes patients with an RMD and SARS-Cov-2 infection.

Objectives:

To assess the impact of a preexisting ILD on COVID-19 morbi-mortality within the French RMD COVID-19 dataset.

Methods:

Patients from the French RMD COVID-19 dataset were included in the analysis. COVID-19 diagnosis was established by a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and/or typical symptoms or chest CT scans pattern during the period of the pandemic. Baseline phenotypic characteristics of the RMD including pre-existing ILD prior to the SARS-CoV-2 infection were collected. COVID-19 evolution was characterized as benign (ambulatory care), moderate (hospitalization outside intensive care unit [ICU]) and severe (hospitalization in ICU). Association between the ILD status and the severity and mortality rate of COVID-19 was assessed using multivariable logistic regression adjusted on sex, age, body mass index and diabetes.

Results:

By June 26, 2020, 897 patients were included. Pre-existing ILD was reported in 27 patients (3%): 11 patients with systemic sclerosis, 8 with rheumatoid arthritis, 2 with auto-immune myositis, 2 with mixed connective tissue disease and 4 with other RMD. Among these 27 patients (11 male, mean age 63.1 ± 16.4 y/o, 56.5% having a usual interstitial pneumonia HRCT pattern), 22 had severe infection. Death related to COVID-19, was observed in 58 patients with RMD without ILD (7.1%) and in 10 patients with RMD-ILD (37%). Having a preexisting ILD was found to be independently associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 (adjusted OR=7.6 [2.9 – 20.2], P<0.001) and an increased mortality rate (adjusted OR=12.3 [3.8 – 39.2], P<0.001).

Conclusion:

In RMD patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, preexisting ILD was associated with an increased risk to severe COVID-19 and related mortality. Our findings suggest that RMD-ILD patients should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination according to the high morbi-mortality rate during SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Disclosure of Interests:

Pierre-Antoine Juge Consultant of: BMS, Eric Hachulla Consultant of: Actelion, Bayer, GSK and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Actelion, Bayer, GSK and Pfizer, Christophe Richez: None declared, Elodie Drumez: None declared, Alain Duhamel: None declared, Raphael Borie: None declared, Philippe Dieudé: None declared

Évolution clinique et facteurs de risque de développer une forme grave de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) chez les patients atteints de lupus systémique

Introduction

Matériels et méthodes

Résultats

Conclusion

POS0724 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THROMBOTIC PRIMARY ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID SYNDROME IN A LARGE COHORT OF PATIENTS FROM FOUR EUROPEAN CENTERS

Background:

Autoimmune diseases occur more frequently in females and their course and severity can be affected by gender. Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disorder in which antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) exert a pathogenic role resulting in vascular thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidities. Data about gender differences in thrombotic APS (t-APS) are still scarce1,2.

Objectives:

To evaluate the differences in frequency, disease expression and severity between females and males affected by primary t-APS.

Methods:

Retrospective study enrolling subjects with a formal diagnosis of primary APS (Miyakis 2006) with vascular thrombosis at onset. Women who presented with obstetric events as first aPL-related manifestation were excluded. All the patients were followed from 1967 to 2019 in four European centers: three French centers and one Italian center.

Results:

The study included 433 patients (68% females, 32% males). Median age at t-APS onset [31 (24-46) vs 41 (29-53) years, p<0.001] and at diagnosis [34 (27-50) vs 46 (34-57) years, p<0.001] was significantly lower in females.

The most common presenting manifestations were venous thrombosis (60%) followed by arterial events (37%) and catastrophic APS (3%). Venous events were more frequent in women as compared to men (64% vs 51% p:0.012 OR:1.7 [1.1-2.5]). Sites of venous thrombosis included: limbs (35%), pulmonary (17%), cerebral (3%), portal and inferior cava (2%) and retinal (1%) veins, without gender differences. The arterial events were more frequent among men (43% vs 34% p:0.053). Strokes (27%) and myocardial infarctions (4%) were the most frequent manifestations, followed by thrombosis of limbs (2%), retina (2%) and abdominal organs (1%). Noteworthy, only men presented with visceral ischemia.

During the follow-up, new thrombosis occurred in 41% of patients (179/433). 33% out of them had at least two episodes and these occurred especially among males (22% vs 10% p:0.001 OR:2.5 [1.3-4.8]). New events were mostly of the same type, but ⅓ of patients presented a switch from venous to arterial side and viceversa, with no gender differences.

Complete aPL profile was available in 357 subjects: 33% had single aPL positivity, 24% double positivity and 43% triple positivity, with no differences between women and men. About 80% of the patients had a concomitant risk factor (RF) for thrombosis. Established cardiovascular RFs were more represented among men as shown in table 1. In women, estrogenic exposure was the main RFs, present in almost 40% of them.

Table 1.MALESn= 137FEMALESn= 296POR [IC 95%]Traditional cardiovascular RFs, n (%)Smoke66 (48)81 (27)<0.0012.5 [1.6-3.8]Arterial hypertension59 (43)75 (25)<0.0012.2 [1.5-3.4]Dyslipidemia52 (38)72 (24)0.0041.9 [1.2-2.9]Diabetes16 (12)15 (5)0.0142.5 [1.8-5.1]Obesity13 (10)38 (13)nsOther thrombophilic factors, n (%)Estrogenic stimuli*0116 (39)-Trauma / surgery / immobilization21 (15)32 (11)nsCongenital thrombophilia9/94 (10)33/204 (16)ns

Data were compared using contingency tables, p value was calculated with Chi-Squared or Fisher exact test. *= hormonal therapy, pregnancy, post-partum

Conclusion:

This gender-oriented analysis of patients with primary t-APS showed that women had the first vascular event at a younger age and mostly on the venous side, while men presented mainly with arterial events, later in life and suffered from more recurrent events. No differences were observed in the distribution of the aPL profile. The different frequency of arterial and venous events in the two groups could be attributed mainly to the presence of additional RFs rather than to biological gender-specific issues. However, it should be underlined that some RFs, such as the use of estrogens or classic cardiovascular RFs, are exclusive or more represented in one gender rather than the other, making it difficult to assess the link of causality between gender and manifestations of t-APS.

References:

[1]JF de Carvalho. Rheumatol Int. 2011.

[2]LJ Jara. Lupus. 2005.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS0861 EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF TOCILIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: A PROPENSITY SCORE CONTROL MATCHED OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF THE EUSTAR COHORT

Background:

Tocilizumab (TCZ) showed trends for improving skin fibrosis and prevented progression of lung fibrosis in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials (RCTs). However, safety and effectiveness of TCZ beyond these selected and enriched clinical trial populations in SSc is still unknown.

Objectives:

To assess safety and effectiveness of TCZ treatment compared to standard of care in SSc patients from the large, multicentre, observational, real-life EUSTAR network/database using propensity score matching.

Methods:

SSc patients from the EUSTAR network/database, who fulfilled the ACR/EULAR 2013 classification criteria, with a baseline and a follow-up visit at 12±3 months, receiving TCZ or standard of care (controls), were selected. The following variables were used for the propensity score matching (1:1): age at diagnosis, gender, disease subtype, baseline modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS), forced vital capacity (FVC), and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), co-therapy with immunosuppressives, disease duration, and year of treatment. Primary endpoints were mRSS and FVC at 12±3 months follow-up compared between the groups, using paired t-tests. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of progressive/regressive patients for skin and lung at 12±3 months follow-up according to standard definitions (1,2). Sensitivity analyses assessed pre-processing decisions (selection of most recent vs. random observation for control patients with multiple suitable time intervals), as well as the matching method (optimal vs. exact matching). Missing values were addressed with 100-fold multiple imputation using chained equations. Safety data were analysed in all patients. The study including the statistical analysis plan was pre-registered at www.drks.de (DRKS-ID: DRKS00015537).

Results:

We identified 93 SSc patients treated with TCZ and 2370 SSc patients with standard of care who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Forty nine (57.7%) of the TCZ treated patients were diffuse, eight patients were not classified, disease duration was (mean±SD) 6.35±5.40 years, their baseline mRSS was 15.05±10.85, and 76 (81.7%) received immunosuppressive therapy in addition to TCZ.Through multiple imputation and propensity score matching, 100 imputed sets of 93 pairs of TCZ/controls were generated. Comparison between groups showed consistent effects of TCZ across all pre-defined primary and secondary endpoints: mRSS was lower in the TCZ group (mean difference (95% confidence interval (CI)) -1.8 (-4.79 to 1.19), p=0.24, Figure 1A). Similarly, FVC % predicted was higher in the TCZ group mean difference (2.25, 95% CI -4.57 to 9.06), p=0.51, Figure 1B). Considering secondary endpoints, the percentage of skin progressors as well as lung progressors at follow up was lower in the TCZ group (odds ratio OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.07 to 6.41), p=0.74 and OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.7); p=0.2, respectively. Consistently, the percentage of regressors for skin (OR 1.6 (95% CI 0.56 to 4.54), p=0.38) and for lung (OR 1.74 (95% CI 0.66 to 4.58), p=0.26) was higher in TCZ. These results were robust regarding the sensitivity analyses. Safety analysis confirmed previously reported adverse event profiles.

Conclusion:

In this large, observational, controlled, real-life EUSTAR study, effectiveness of TCZ did not reach statistical significance compared to standard of care treatment but showed consistent positive effects of TCZ on skin and lung fibrosis across all pre-defined primary and secondary endpoints confirming data from recent RCTs.

References:

[1]Prediction of improvement in skin fibrosis in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a EUSTAR analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 2016:1743-8.

[2]Progressive interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease in the EUSTAR database. Ann Rheum Dis 2021:219-227.

Disclosure of Interests:

Simon Kuster: None declared, Suzana Jordan: None declared, Muriel Daniele Elhai: None declared, Ulrike Held: None declared, Klaus Steigmiller: None declared, Cosimo Bruni: None declared, Florenzo Iannone: None declared, Serena Vettori: None declared, Elise Siegert: None declared, Simona Rednic: None declared, Veronica Codullo: None declared, Paolo Airò Consultant of: Dr. Airo’ reports personal fees (consultancies) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Bohringer Ingelheim, non-financial support from CSL Behring, SOBI, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, Yolanda Braun-Moscovici: None declared, Nicolas Hunzelmann: None declared, Maria Joao Salvador: None declared, Valeria Riccieri: None declared, Ana Maria Gheorghiu: None declared, Juan Jose Alegre Sancho: None declared, Katarzyna Romanowska-Prochnicka: None declared, Ivan Castellví: None declared, Ina Koetter: None declared, Marie-Elise Truchetet Consultant of: Marie-Elise Truchetet has had consultancy relationships and/or has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi in the area of potential treatments of scleroderma and its complications., Grant/research support from: Marie-Elise Truchetet has had consultancy relationships and/or has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi in the area of potential treatments of scleroderma and its complications., Francisco J López-Longo: None declared, Pavel Novikov: None declared, Alessandro Giollo: None declared, Yuichiro Shirai: None declared, Laura Belloli: None declared, Elisabetta Zanatta: None declared, Eric Hachulla: None declared, Vanessa Smith: None declared, Christopher Denton: None declared, Ruxandra Ionescu: None declared, Tim Schmeiser: None declared, Jörg H.W. Distler: None declared, Armando Gabrielli: None declared, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Consultant of: AMHV has received research funding and/or consulting fees and/or other remuneration from Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bayer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, ARXX, Lilly and Medscape, Grant/research support from: AMHV has received research funding and/or consulting fees and/or other remuneration from Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bayer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, ARXX, Lilly and Medscape. Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Yannick Allanore: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: Oliver Distler has/had consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications from (last three years): Abbvie, Acceleron Pharma, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx Therapeutics, Baecon Discovery, Blade Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Galapagos NV, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Horizon (Curzion) Pharmaceuticals, Inventiva, iQvia, Italfarmaco, iQone, Kymera Therapeutics, Lilly, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur, Target Bioscience and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Consultant of: Oliver Distler has/had consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications from (last three years): Abbvie, Acceleron Pharma, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx Therapeutics, Baecon Discovery, Blade Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Galapagos NV, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Horizon (Curzion) Pharmaceuticals, Inventiva, iQvia, Italfarmaco, iQone, Kymera Therapeutics, Lilly, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur, Target Bioscience and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Grant/research support from: The study was partially supported by a grant from Roche. Roche was not involved in analysis or interpretation of the results.

POS1454-HPR AESTHETIC IMPAIRMENT IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: A CASE CONTROL STUDY USING A SEMI-QUANTITATIVE SCALE FOR BODY IMAGE ASSESSMENT

Background:

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a fibrotic autoimmune disease characterized by dermatological involvement. Skin involvement can alter appearance, which can have a psychological impact(1). Assessment of body image could be central in optimizing care. Yet, data are scarce(2).

Objectives:

The main objective of our study was to assess aesthetic impairment measured on a visual aesthetic scale (AES) (3) in patients with SSc compared to a group of healthy subjects. Secondary objectives were to assess associations between aesthetic impairment and standardized questionnaires for aesthetic impairment as well as clinical, biological, psychological/quality of life, and functional parameters of SSc.

Methods:

The “Sclero-esthet” study is a descriptive single-center study of two populations: patients with SSc, included in a referral center for systemic and autoimmune diseases at Lille Hospital, France, and healthy controls.

Results:

This study, from January 2017 to October 2017, included 88 patients (69 [78.4%] women) with a median age of 52 years (range: 43 to 59) and 88 controls (49 [55.7%] women) with a median age of 45 years (range: 32 to 55). Perception of physical changes assessed using the AES was greater in cases than in controls (3.7 ± 0.3 vs 2.8 ± 0.3, p=0.028), with statistical correlation with ASWAP. SSc patients with anxiety or depressive symptoms had significantly higher AES scores. Cases presented poorer quality of life than controls.

Conclusion:

The AES appears to be a good tool to evaluate aesthetic impairment. Correlations found with psychological and quality of life parameters support the need to improve patient management in this field.

References:

[1]Cash TF. Body image: past, present, and future. Body Image 2004;1(1):1–5.

[2]Benrud-Larson LM, Heinberg LJ, Boling C, Reed J, White B, Wigley FM. Body image dissatisfaction among women with scleroderma: extent and relationship to psychosocial function. Health Psychol mars. 2003;22(2):130–9.

[3]Nguyen C, Ranque B, Baubet T, Bérezné A, Mestre-Stanislas C, Rannou F, et al. Clinical, Functional and Health-Related Quality of Life Correlates of Clinically Significant Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis: A Cross-Sectional Survey. PLoS ONE 2014;9(2).

[4]Heinberg LJ, Kudel I, White B, Kwan A, Medley K, Wigley F. Assessing body image in patients with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma): Validation of the Adapted Satisfaction with Appearance Scale. Body Image 2007;4(1):79–86.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS0855 PATIENT PREFERENCES, TRADE-OFFS AND ACCEPTABLE RISKS IN THE TREATMENT OF SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS-ASSOCIATED INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE: A STEP TOWARDS SHARED DECISION-MAKING

Background:

Current treatments for systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) are characterised by different attributes such as mode of administration, adverse events (AE) and efficacy. Physicians and patients often have different perspectives on treatments, thus shared decision-making between patients and physicians is essential. An understanding of patients’ decision processes when weighing treatment attributes and the trade-offs they are willing to make is important for shared decision-making.

Objectives:

The study aimed to 1) identify relevant treatment attributes, 2) elicit patient preferences for these attributes and 3) quantify preference as relative attribute importance (RAI; a higher RAI indicates that more of the variability in patients’ responses may be explained by changes in the attribute); and maximum acceptable risk (MAR) of diarrhoea, nausea and/or vomiting (MAR is a trade-off measure that evaluates attributes in risk-equivalences as a unit of measurement).

Methods:

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was created, based on a literature review, a patient advisory board, qualitative patient interviews, and a workshop involving SSc-ILD expert physicians. Seven SSc-ILD treatment attributes were identified: 1) mode of administration; 2) shortness of breath; 3) skin tightness; 4) cough; 5) tiredness; 6) risk of gastrointestinal tract (GIT) AEs; and 7) risk of serious and non-serious infections. The levels of AE risk were informed by frequencies observed in clinical trials and patient input during the interviews. The DCE was integrated into an online survey, which asked patients to make repeated choices between two alternatives described by varying levels of included attributes. Patients with SSc-ILD were recruited by physician referral from Switzerland, Norway, France, Germany and the USA. DCE data were analysed using a logit model, and RAI and MAR measures were calculated.

Results:

A total of 231 patients with physician-confirmed SSc-ILD (mean age 52.6±13.2 years; 54% diagnosed for >5 years) completed the survey. Patients with SSc-ILD mostly preferred twice-daily oral treatments (p<0.001) and infusion every 6–12 months (p<0.001) over monthly infusions. Patients’ choices were mostly affected by the risk of GIT AEs (RAI=25%; 95% CI 22–28%) and risk of infections (RAI=20%; 95% CI 16–24%). Improvements in shortness of breath and type and severity of cough were jointly more important than improvement in skin tightness (p<0.001).

Patients accepted an additional 21% risk (95% CI 13–29%) of GIT AEs if they could reduce the frequency of infusions from monthly to 6–12 monthly, or accepted an extra 15% (95% CI 7–23%) increase in risk if changing to an oral treatment twice daily. Among symptoms, an additional 28% (95% CI 20–36%) risk of GIT AEs was considered acceptable if the severity of patients’ persistent cough was reduced to a level that was easier to tolerate, even if it remained persistent. Similarly, a 37% (95% CI 28–46%) increase in the risk of GIT AEs was acceptable if it resulted in breathlessness during routine activities rather than breathlessness at rest. Finally, patients were willing to accept an additional 36% risk (95% CI 27–45%) of GIT AEs if it reduced their risk of non-serious infections from 30% to 15% and of serious infections from 10% to 5%.

Conclusion:

This is the first study to quantitatively elicit patients’ preferences for attributes of SSc-ILD treatments. Preferences were driven by safety, efficacy and technical considerations. Patients showed willingness to make trade-offs, providing a firm basis for shared decision-making in routine clinical practice.

Disclosure of Interests:

Cosimo Bruni Speakers bureau: Actelion, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Gruppo Italiano Lotta alla Scleroderma (GILS), Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sull’Artrite (FIRA), New Horizon Fellowship, European Scleroderma Trial and Research (EUSTAR), Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM)., Sebastian Heidenreich Consultant of: Sebastian Heidenreich, PhD is employed by Evidera Inc, a business unit of PPD. Evidera is a CRO that offers paid research services to pharmaceutical companies., Ashley Duenas Consultant of: Yes. I am an employee of Evidera which received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim for work related to this study., Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Consultant of: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bayer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, ARXX, Lilly and Medscape, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Armando Gabrielli Grant/research support from: Pfizer Bhering, Yannick Allanore Consultant of: Honorarium received from Boehringer, Medsenic,

Sanofi, Menarini, Grant/research support from: Grants received from Alpine, Ose Immunogenetics, Emmanuel Chatelus: None declared, Jörg H.W. Distler Shareholder of: JHWD is stock owner of 4D Science, Consultant of: JHWD has consultancy relationships with Actelion, Active Biotech, Anamar, ARXX, Bayer Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, GSK, Inventiva, JB Therapeutics, Medac, Pfizer, RuiYi and UCB, Grant/research support from: JHWD has received research funding from Anamar, Active Biotech, Array Biopharma, ARXX, aTyr, BMS, Bayer Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, GSK, Inventiva, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, RedX, UCB, Eric Hachulla: None declared, Vivian Hsu Speakers bureau: I am a speaker for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Consultant of: with Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: Principal Investigator for several clinical trials, currently with Genentech, Corbus Pharmaceutical, and EICOS, Nicolas Hunzelmann Speakers bureau: Boehringer, Roche, Sanofi, Dinesh Khanna Shareholder of: Eicos Sciences, Inc (less than 5%), Consultant of: Paid Consultant for: Acceleron, Actelion, Abbvie, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Corbus, Gilead, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Horizon, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, and United Therapeutics, Grant/research support from: Research Grant support from: Immune Tolerance Network, Bayer, BMS, Horizon, Pfizer, Employee of: Leadership/Equity position – Chief Medical Officer, CiviBioPharma/Eicos Sciences, Inc – recieves a stipend for role as Chief Medical Officer, which would technically qualify as emplyoment., Marie-Elise Truchetet Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Lilly, Sobi, Boehringer, Paid instructor for: Lilly, Consultant of: UCB, Sobi, Abbvie, Grant/research support from: UCB, Gilead, Ulrich Walker Shareholder of: Bayer, NASDAQ, MSCI-World ETF’s, Speakers bureau: All companies producing pharmaceuticals used in AIDS, Paid instructor for: Roche, Abbvie, Novartis, Consultant of: All companies producing pharmaceuticals used in AIDS, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Abbvie, (in the last two years). Other companies in previous years., Margarida Alves Employee of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Nils Schoof Employee of: Employee of Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Lesley Ann Saketkoo Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion, Janssen, Mallinckrodt, United Therapeutics, Consultant of: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Corbus, EICOS, Janssen, Horizon, United Therapeutics, Inc, Grant/research support from: Mallinckrodt, United Therapeutics, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Medscape, IQone, Roche, Consultant of: OD has/had consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications from (last three years):

Abbvie, Acceleron Pharma, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx Therapeutics, Baecon Discovery, Blade Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Galapagos NV, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Horizon (Curzion) Pharmaceuticals, Inventiva, iQvia, Italfarmaco, iQone, Kymera Therapeutics, Lilly, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur, Target Bioscience and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Grant/research support from: Kymera Therapeutics, Mitsubishi Tanabe

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.

Raising rare disease awareness using red flags, role play simulation and patient educators: results of a novel educational workshop on Raynaud phenomenon and systemic sclerosis

BACKGROUND

As lack of awareness of rare diseases (RDs) among healthcare professionals results in delayed diagnoses, there is a need for a more efficient approach to RD training during academic education. We designed an experimental workshop that used role-play simulation with patient educators and focused on teaching "red flags" that should raise the suspicion of an RD when faced with a patient with frequently encountered symptoms. Our objective was to report our experience, and to assess the improvement in learners' knowledge and the satisfaction levels of the participants.

RESULTS

The workshop consisted of 2 simulated consultations that both started with the same frequent symptom (Raynaud phenomenon, RP) but led to different diagnoses: a frequent condition (idiopathic RP) and an RD (systemic sclerosis, SSc). In the second simulated consultation, the role of the patient was played by a patient educator with SSc. By juxtaposing 2 seemingly similar situations, the training particularly highlighted the elements that help differentiate SSc from idiopathic RP. When answering a clinical case exam about RP and SSc, students that had participated in the workshop had a higher mean mark than those who had not (14 ± 3.7 vs 9.6 ± 5.5 points out of 20, p = 0.001). Participants mostly felt "very satisfied" with this training (94%), and "more comfortable" about managing idiopathic RP and SSc (100%). They considered the workshop "not very stressful" and "very formative" (both 71%). When asked about the strengths of this training, they mentioned the benefits of being put in an immersive situation, allowing a better acquisition of practical skills and a more interactive exchange with teachers, as well as the confrontation with a real patient, leading to a better retention of semiological findings and associating a relational component with this experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the use of innovative educational methods, such as role-play simulation and patient educators, and by focusing on teaching "red flags", our workshop successfully improved RP and SSc learning in a way that satisfied students. By modifying the workshop's scenarios, its template can readily be applied to other clinical situations, making it an interesting tool to teach other RDs.

THU0352 DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCES OF HAND ULTRASOUND PARAMETERS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE 2013 ACR/EULAR CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA FOR SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS

Background:

Recent studies have highlighted that ultrasound (US) examination could offer a better assessment of hand manifestations of systemic sclerosis (SSc). Indeed, US allows a simultaneous evaluation of vascular, fibrotic and inflammatory hand features of the disease. Power Doppler US can especially explore macrovascular involvement characterized by an obliteration of digital arteries or ulnar arteries. Ulnar artery occlusion (UAO) is especially frequent in SSc patients and could be a relevant marker of the severity of SSc-associated vasculopathy. Among other hand manifestations of SSc, US evaluation can notably explore tenosynovial involvement such as fibrotic tenosynovitis (TS), which is considered to be SSc-specific.

Objectives:

This study aims to assess the diagnostic performances of these hand US parameters for the diagnosis of SSc.

Methods:

244 patients with suspected SSc were consecutively included. They all had US evaluation assessing the presence of fibrotic TS and UAO. The final diagnosis of SSc was based on the evaluation of an expert, independently from US results and from any pre-established classification criteria.

Results:

166 patients were finally diagnosed as SSc. 62 SSc and 8 non-SSc patients had UAO (uni or bilateral) (p=0.001). 23 SSc patients and 1 non-SSc patient had US fibrotic TS (p=0.007). A US SSc-pattern (presence of UAO and/or fibrotic TS) was reported in 73 SSc patients and 9 non-SSc patients (p<0.001). UAO had an area under ROC curve (AUC) for the diagnosis of SSc of 0.618 (95%CI 0.539-0.697); with Se= 0.373 (0.304-0.449) and spe=0.862 (0.751-0.928). The presence of a US fibrotic TS had an AUC of 0.561 (0.480-0.643); with Se= 0.139 (0.094-0.199) and spe=0.983 (0.909-0.997). The US-SSc pattern had a AUC of 0.641 (0.563-0.695), with Se=0.440 (0.367-0.516) and spe=0.845 (0.731-0.916). When used as a diagnostic tool, the original 2013 classification criteria had an AUC of 0.982 (0.969-0.996) with Se= 0.946 (0.900-0.971) and spe=0.931 (0.836-0.973). Including UAO and fibrotic TS in this classification had few impact (AUC of 0.979 (0.962-0.996) with Se= 0.940 (0.893-0.967) and and spe=0.931 (0.836-0.973)) but allows the substitution of some items (such as capillaroscopy) by US parameters with similar performances for diagnosis.

Conclusion:

The use of hand US parameters may help to refine the diagnostic strategy of SSc and their inclusion in addition with the items of the ACR/EULAR classification could be discussed.

Disclosure of Interests:

Marine de Saint Riquier: None declared, Alice Ballerie: None declared, François ROBIN: None declared, Nicolas Belhomme: None declared, Claire Cazalets: None declared, Catherine Droitcourt: None declared, Aleth Perdriger: None declared, Cécile Marie Yelnik: None declared, Eric Hachulla Speakers bureau: speaking fees from Actelion Pharmaceuticals,

GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer outside of the current study, Vincent Sobanski: None declared, Patrick Jégo: None declared, Guillaume Coiffier: None declared, Alain LESCOAT: None declared