Training the Armed Forces personnel in COVID-19 contact tracing: a Portuguese case study

Background

Local contact tracing teams needed to be reinforced in preparation for a peak in Covid-19 cases. The Portuguese Armed Forces showed availability and their members initiated a formal training facilitated by the Public Health Unit (PHU) of Amadora. Health systems must be prepared to respond to all threats, as the COVID-19 pandemic showed us the need for quick task shifting and the training of non-experts’ workers.

Objectives

The aim of the project was to develop contact tracing skills by non-health professionals, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The training program was held online, with a total duration of 48 hours, distributed by the topics described: introduction to health and epidemiology concepts, the national guidelines, and the information systems (13h). We privileged demonstrative and participatory training methods, followed by continuous supervision of each contact tracing survey and constant feedback (35h). Learning support materials were sent out to assist the trainees, including written and video support.

Results

More than 200 personnel - sailors, soldiers and airmen - were trained. Each Lisbon and Tagus Valley area PHU was reinforced with a team of military professionals in order to support the contact tracing process, with an increase in the number of surveys completed. We highlight as positive aspects: increased number of contact tracing surveys carried out; growth of inter-institutional partnerships; freeing up of specialized PHU resources to other important tasks. As for negative aspects we focus on the complexity in health communication, the limited time for training, and the lack of specific health knowledge of the trainees.

Conclusions

This pandemic revealed the Portuguese need for a transdisciplinary approach in the provision of care, specially at a Public Health level. Training programs like these highlight the vital role of reshaping and reorganizing the healthcare workforce answering Public Health necessities.

Key messages

• Training programs for non-health workers must be prepared to reinforce health systems when necessary. The reinforcement of contact tracing teams by the Portuguese Armed Forces was a great example.

• A transdisciplinary approach in the provision of care was essential during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific training of non-health workers can be planned in time to respond to health threats.

POS0692 IANALUMAB (VAY736) SAFETY AND EFFICACY IN PATIENTS WITH SJOGREN’S SYNDROME: 52 WEEK RESULTS FROM A RANDOMISED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, PHASE 2B DOSE-RANGING TRIAL

Background:

Sjogren’s syndrome (SS) is an autoimmune disease affecting excretory glands and characterised by B-cell hyperactivity. Ianalumab (VAY736) is a human monoclonal antibody to B-cell activating factor receptor, engineered for direct ADCC-mediated B-cell depletion. A Phase 2b study evaluated the dose-response of VAY736 vs placebo (PBO) in EULAR SS Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) change from baseline (CHB) and other secondary endpoints.

Objectives:

Primary results at Week (Wk) 24 were reported previously1. Here we report 52 Wk safety and efficacy from extended blinded treatment period 2 (TP2).

Methods:

190 patients (pts) were randomised equally to receive s.c. doses of VAY736 (5, 50, 300 mg) or PBO every 4 Wks (q4w). Eligible pts fulfilled American European Consensus Group (AECG) criteria, were anti-Ro/SSA+, had ESSDAI ≥6 and EULAR SS Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥5. At Wk 24, after completion of the first blinded TP (TP1), PBO-treated pts were switched to VAY736 150 mg, and pts on 300 mg were re-randomised to continue 300 mg or PBO for 28 Wks in TP2. Pts were followed post-treatment for ≥20 Wks. Safety was assessed for all periods. Due to lack of PBO-control in TP2, descriptive efficacy analysis was performed for ESSDAI, ESSPRI, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F), Physician’s (PhGA) and Patient’s Global Assessments (PaGA), SF-36, and SS symptom diary (SSSD).

Results:

Overall, there was no dose dependency of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) except for injection site reactions, which were mostly mild to moderate in severity. Lymphopenia and neutropenia were mostly grade (G)1 and G2, no G4. Most common TEAEs were infections and infestations in exposure-adjusted analysis of incidence rates. Nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infections were the most common TEAEs, with no dose response (Table 1). Tracheobronchitis and pneumonia, were mild to moderate severity, not associated with absolute neutrophil count G3, and none led to treatment withdrawal.

At Wk 52, efficacy was sustained for pts who continued 300 mg in TP2 (ESSDAI, ESSPRI, PaGA, PhGA CHB: –9.06, –1.91, –22.03, –35.80, respectively). Efficacy was partially lost for pts switched to PBO at Wk 24 (Figure 1). Improvement was noted for PBO pts switched to 150 mg. Stimulated whole salivary flow at Wk 24 was improved for 300 mg (PBO-adjusted CHB 0.20 ml/min; P=0·037); last measurement at Wk 48 was 0.45 and 0.22 ml/min CHB in pts who continued 300 mg or PBO in TP2, respectively.

Conclusion:

Ianalumab 300 mg was well tolerated up to 52 Wks. Exploratory efficacy showed that continuous dosing of 300 mg s.c. q4w provided sustained clinical benefit. PaGA was the outcome that showed the most prominent change following switch to PBO or VAY736.

References:

[1]Dörner T, et al. [OP0302]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020; 79 (suppl 1).

Table 1.

Key Safety Data (All Study Periods up to Week 52)*

n (%)[EAIR]15 mg24 Wks(N=47)50 mg24 Wks(N=47)150 mg28 Wks(N=47)Any 300 mg (N=47)Any AE43 (91.5)43 (91.5)44 (93.6)45 (95.7)[517.5][423.3][621.0][544.6]Any SAE3 (6.4)5 (10.6)8 (17.0)8 (17.0)[5.9][10.7][19.9][13.6]Infections and infestations (SOC)233 (70.2)31 (66.0)34 (72.3)38 (80.9)[154.1][119.2][162.0][127.7]Nasopharyngitis37 [15.5]4 [8.5] 9 [22.1]9 [16.5]Upper respiratory tract infections36 [12.8]8 [17.8]5 [11.6]8 [13.6]Bronchitis33 [6.2]3 [6.2]4 [9.5]4 [6.6]Tracheobronchitis31 [2.0]0 [0.0]0 [0.0]3 [5.0]Pneumonia31 [2.0]0 [0.0]1 [2.2]2 [3.3]Blood & Lymphatic Disorders (SOC)28 (17.0)9 (19.1)6 (12.8)9 (19.1)[18.0][20.8][14.3][16.8]Lymphopenia34 [8.4]4 [8.6]3 [6.8]2 [3.3]Neutropenia35 [10.7]1 [2.1]2 [4.5]4 [6.9]Injection site reaction34 (8.5)9 (19.1)17 (36.2)27 (57.4)

*Includes all safety data from TP1, TP2 and post-treatment follow-up; cut-off 06-Feb-2020

1EAIR, incidence rate per 100 subject years. For patient with an event, exposure time is censored at time of first event;

2Number of pts with at least one AE in SOC;

3PT, preferred term;

SOC, system organ class

Disclosure of Interests:

Thomas Dörner Consultant of: Novartis, GSK, Sanofi, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Simon J. Bowman Consultant of: Astrazeneca, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Medimmune, MTPharma, Novartis, Ono, UCB, xtlbio, Robert Fox Consultant of: Novartis, Pfizer and Lilly, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Medimmune, GSK, Grant/research support from: Servier, Athena Papas Consultant of: Novartis, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Thomas Grader-Beck Consultant of: Novartis, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Celgene, Ben A Fisher Consultant of: Novartis, Roche, BMS and Servier, Filipe Barcelos Consultant of: Pfizer and Lilly, Salvatore De Vita Consultant of: Roche, Human Genome Science, Glaxo Smith Kline and Novartis, Hendrik Schulze-Koops Consultant of: Novartis, Robert J Moots Consultant of: Amgen, Chugai, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Chugai, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Guido Junge Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Janice Woznicki Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Monika Sopala Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Wen-Lin Luo Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Wolfgang Hueber Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis

OP0302 IANALUMAB (VAY736), A DUAL MODE OF ACTION BIOLOGIC COMBINING BAFF RECEPTOR INHIBITION WITH B CELL DEPLETION, REACHES PRIMARY ENDPOINT FOR TREATMENT OF PRIMARY SJOGREN’S SYNDROME

Background:

Primary Sjogren’s syndrome (pSS) is a multi-organ autoimmune disease mainly affecting excretory glands and characterised by B-cell hyperactivity. No approved systemic treatment is available. Ianalumab (VAY736) is an anti-B-cell activating factor (BAFF) receptor fully human monoclonal antibody, engineered for direct ADCC-mediated B-cell depletion.

Objectives:

This phase 2b study aimed at establishing a dose-response relationship over a range of VAY736 doses, using change from baseline (BL) in EULAR Sjogren’s Syndrome Disease Activity index (ESSDAI) over 24 Weeks (Wks) as primary endpoint. The study is ongoing with a second blinded treatment period up to Wk52. Here we report efficacy and safety Wk24.

Methods:

190 patients (pts) were randomised 1:1:1:1 to receive monthly s.c. doses of VAY736 (5, 50, 300mg) or placebo (PBO). Prior to 1st-dose of study treatment, pts received methylprednisolone i.v. 250mg. Eligible pts fulfilled American European Consensus Group (AECG) criteria, were anti-Ro/SSA+, had ESSDAI ≥6 and EULAR Sjogren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥5. Statistical methods included MCP-Mod to assess dose-response on change of ESSDAI from BL and responder rate analysis to calculate the proportion of pts with ≥3 points improvement on ESSDAI. Secondary endpoints included ESSPRI, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F), Physician’s (PhGA) and Patient’s Global Assessments (PaGA), SF-36, stimulated salivary flow (sSF), Schirmer’s test.

Results:

Primary endpoint was met with statistically significant dose-response for ESSDAI (Figure). The largest ESSDAI reduction was 1.92 points over PBO for VAY736 300mg at Wk24. Responder rate analysis on ESSDAI revealed for 300mg vs PBO responder rates of 42/47 (89.4%) vs 30/49 (61.2%), a difference of 28.1% (p=0.0019). No differences were seen for 5mg and 50mg vs PBO. PhGA change from BL was significantly different between 300mg and PBO (p=0.022). A numerical trend for sSF improvement for VAY736 300mg compared to PBO was notable at Wk24 (p=0.092). For secondary endpoints ESSPRI and FACIT-F, VAY736 treatment showed no benefits over PBO. PBO responses were generally high. Incidence of treatment emergent AEs was comparable across all studied groups, whereby site injection reactions were most frequent, mostly mild and showed a dose-response.

Conclusion:

Primary endpoint assessing ESSDAI was met, showing statistically significant dose-response for ianalumab with clinically important improvement for 300mg vs PBO. Preliminary safety profile of ianalumab was good.

Figure.

ESSDAI Change from Baseline over Time up to Week 24 Reveals a Statistically Significant Dose Response Relationship

Disclosure of Interests:

Thomas Dörner Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Roche, Janssen, EMD, Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Roche, Samsung, Janssen, Simon J. Bowman Consultant of: Astrazeneca, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Medimmune, MTPharma, Novartis, Ono, UCB, xtlbio, Glapagos, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Robert Fox Consultant of: Novartis, Pfizer and Lilly, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: BMS, Gilead, Medimmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, UCB, Athena Papas Grant/research support from: Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis, Thomas Grader-Beck Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Celgene, Consultant of: Novartis, Lilly, Ben A Fisher Consultant of: Novartis, Roche, BMS and Servier, Filipe Barcelos Consultant of: Pfizer and Lilly, Salvatore De Vita Consultant of: Roche, Human Genome Science, Glaxo Smith Kline and Novartis, Hendrik Schulze-Koops Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Robert J Moots: None declared, Guido Junge Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Janice Woznicki Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Monika Sopala Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Wen-Lin Luo Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Wolfgang Hueber Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis

Portuguese recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis and management of primary osteoporosis - 2018 update

BACKGROUND

Advances in osteoporosis (OP)case definition, treatment options, optimal therapy duration and pharmacoeconomic evidence in the national context motivated the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology (SPR) to update the Portuguese recommendations for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis published in 2007.

METHODS

SPR bone diseases' working group organized meetings involving 55 participants (rheumatologists, rheumatology fellows and one OP specialist nurse) to debate and develop the document. First, the working group selected 11 pertinent clinical questions for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in standard clinical practice. Then, each question was investigated through literature review and draft recommendations were built through consensus. When insufficient evidence was available, recommendations were based on experts' opinion and on good clinical practice. At two national meetings, the recommendations were discussed and updated. A draft of the recommendations full text was submitted to critical review among the working group and suggestions were incorporated. A final version was circulated among all Portuguese rheumatologists before publication and the level of agreement was anonymously assessed using an online survey.

RESULTS

The 2018 SPR recommendations provide comprehensive guidance on osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, fracture risk assessment, pharmacological treatment initiation, therapy options and duration of treatment, based on the best available evidence. They attained desirable agreement among Portuguese rheumatologists. As more evidence becomes available, periodic revisions will be performed. Target audience and patient population: The target audience for these guidelines includes all clinicians. The target patient population includes adult Portuguese people. Intended use: These recommendations provide general guidance for typical cases. They may not be appropriate in all situations - clinicians are encouraged to consider this information together with updated evidence and their best clinical judgment in individual cases.

[Perceived pain and weather changes in rheumatic patients]

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatic patients with chronic pain describe in a vivid way the influence of climate on pain and disease activity. Several studies seem to confirm this association.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare in a population of rheumatic patients the perceived influence of weather changes on pain and disease activity

METHODS

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. For three weeks an assisted self-reported questionnaire with nine dimensions and a VAS pain scale was performed on consecutive out-patients in our clinic.

RESULTS

955 patients 787 female 168 male mean age 57.9 years with several rheumatologic diagnosis were evaluated. Overall 70 of the patients believed that the weather influenced their disease and 40 believed that the influence was high. Morning stiffness was influenced in 54 high influenced in 34 . Autumn and Winter were the most influential periods as well as humidity 67 and low temperatures 59 .

CONCLUSION

In our study as well as in literature we found that a high percentage of patients 70 perceived that weather conditions influenced their pain and disease. Fibromyalgia patients seemed to be strongly influenced by weather changes. Our study confirms that patients perception on the influence of climate on pain and therefore their disease is an important clinical factor and it should be considered when evaluating rheumatic patients.