Background: Real world evidence data regarding secukinumab (SEC) use in biologic-experienced patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are scarce. Objectives:To assess the real life survival, safety and efficacy of SEC in biologic-experienced patients with PsA.Methods: All biologic-experienced PsA patients treated with SEC in 2 University Rheumatology Units were included (3/2016-12/2018). Patients' and disease characteristics were recorded at baseline and during SEC therapy.Results: 75 patients were included; 76% were females with a mean age of 53.9 years, median disease duration of 6.7 years and median SEC treatment duration of 11.1 months. At baseline, 97% had peripheral arthritis, 42% axial involvement, 22% enthesitis, and 12% dactylitis. Regarding previous biologic exposure, 48 (64%) had been exposed to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents only, 5 (7%) to the interleukin (IL)-12/23 inhibitor (Ustekinumab-UST) only while 22 (29%) both to anti-TNFs and UST. Fifty-three percent received SEC in combination with non-biologics and 35% with glucocorticoids, respectively. During follow-up, statistically significant improvement in different disease activity indices were noted (DAS28-CRP, DAPSA, BASDAI). SEC survival rate at the end of follow-up was 64% (48/75), without difference between patients exposed to anti-TNFs only (67%) vs. anti-TNFs and UST (68%) as well as to 1 vs. ≥2 anti-TNFs. The rate of serious adverse events and serious infections during follow-up was 4.8 and 1.2/100 patient-years, respectively.Discussion: In real life, in biologic-experienced patients with PsA, SEC displayed a high retention rate, regardless of the type, and number of previous biologics (anti-TNFs ± anti-IL12/23), without significant side effects.

No abstract

We studied frequency of contact among Connecticut high school students and teachers with leukemia and lymphoma diagnosed during or after high school from 1960 through 1971. Risk of having attended the same grade at the same school during the same year was greater among students with Hodgkin's disease (HD) than among simulated controls drawn in proportion to school enrollment (relative risk = 1.44; approximate 95% lower confidence limit = 1.05). Risk of developing HD was also greater among students enrolled simultaneously at the same school as students already diagnosed with HD than among students not so enrolled (relative risk = 2.05; 95% lower confidence limit = 1.39). However, fewer HD cases (16) were diagnosed from 1965 through 1970 at schools that formerly had patients enrolled (1959-64) than at matched schools without such patients (24). We found no evidence of increased contact among persons with non-HD lymphomas or leukemias, except between HD and non-HD lymphomas (relative risk = 1.41; approximate 95% lower confidence limit = 1.11).

Background:The lack of pathognomonic features poses a considerable challenge in SLE diagnosis. The time from symptom onset to diagnosis has been reported to range from two to six years1.Objectives:To document the initial symptoms of the disease and the time lapse until its diagnosis.Methods:We examined 438 patients from the “Attikon” SLE cohort2. For diagnosis, we used the classification criteria (ACR, SLICC, EULAR-ACR) or in few cases clinical diagnosis (n=32, 7.3%). Data were collected using patient interviews, in-person clinical visits and medical charts review. Initial symptoms were recorded and determined chronologically using prespecified forms with a list of typical manifestations (skin, joints, renal, nervous system, pleuropulmonary, cardiovascular, anti-phospholipid syndrome) as well as characteristic disease features (Raynaud’s phenomenon, fatigue, fever, sicca symptoms). Questions also included the time between symptom onset and initial physician visit, the time from first medical consultation until first rheumatologist assessment, the time from rheumatologist assessment to SLE definite diagnosis, the number of physicians seen before SLE diagnosis, the specialty of first physician and of diagnosing physician. Information on demographic and clinical characteristics, disease activity and disease damage, was collected both at enrolment and at last follow-up visit.Results:88.5% of patients were females, mean (±SD) age at diagnosis was 41.9 years ± 15.4 and disease duration was 6.7 ± 7 years. Most common systems involved were joints (94.5%), skin (73.7%), blood (39.2%) and renal (17.5%). At diagnosis, 9.8% of patients were ANA negative. The most common initial symptoms at disease onset were arthritis/arthralgia (74.4%), followed by fatigue (53.1%) and photosensitive rash (50.9%) (Table 1). Among non-criteria features, Raynaud’s phenomenon was reported by 146 patients (33.3%) prior the diagnosis. The median interval between symptoms onset and the SLE diagnosis was 16 months (IQR 5-60). SLE was diagnosed earlier in ANA-positive than -negative patients [median time 14 months (IQR 5-60) vs 36 months (IQR 10.5-84); P=0.1, t-test]. Approximately half of the patients (52.5%) were diagnosed after 12 months from disease onset with only 15.9% diagnosed within 3 months of symptoms presentation. The median lag time between onset of symptoms and the first medical consultation was 2 months (IQR 1-12). Internists were the most common first consultants (27.8%) followed by orthopedists (15.9%), dermatologists (13.6%) and rheumatologists (13.4%). The median interval between the first medical assessment and first rheumatologist evaluation was 3 months (IQR 0-11.5) while the median time from rheumatologist assessment to definite diagnosis was 0 months (IQR 0-4). SLE patients consulted an average of 3 different physicians before the definite diagnosis, which in 95.8% was established by rheumatologists.Conclusion:Approximately 50% of patients were diagnosed with SLE after 12 months from symptom onset with a mean time from symptoms to definite diagnosis almost 4 years. Increasing awareness of internists to SLE and avoidance of strict adherence to ANA as a requirement for diagnosis may improve early diagnosis.Table 1.Initial symptoms prior to diagnosisSymptomsN=438 (%)Duration*(mean months ±SD)Arthralgias326 (74.4)37.5 ±69.4Photosensitive rash223 (50.9)30.6 ±70.2Malar rash168 (38.3)22.6 ±62Alopecia167 (38.1)19.6 ±54.6Ulcers106 (24.2)16.8 ±54.4Fever103 (23.5)9.3 ±43.8Raynaud’s phenomenon146 (33.3)22.3 ±68.5Fatigue233 (53.1)19.7 ±45.7*Mean time from symptom onset to established diagnosisReferences:[1]Nightingale AL, Davidson JE, Molta CT et al. Lupus Science & Medicine 2017; doi:10.1136/lupus-2016-000172.[2]D Nikolopoulos et al. Lupus 2020; doi: 10.1177/0961203320908932.Acknowledgements:This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 742390)Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Background:Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) affects both sexes equally, however there seem to be significant differences in disease expression between the genders.Objectives:To investigate gender differences in disease manifestations, patient-reported outcomes and comorbidities among patients with PsA.Methods:This cross-sectional study of patients with PsA followed at an academic rheumatology outpatient clinic between 1/6/2017 and 1/12/2019. We compared clinical characteristics, patient-reported outcomes, disease activity and comorbidities in male and female patients with PsA. All patients were over 18 years of age and fulfilled the CASPAR criteria for PsA. Differences between gender in values of continuous variables were assessed by T-tests or Mann-Whitney tests. The association between categorical variables and gender was assessed by Pearson chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test.Results:135 patients, 83 (62%) women and 52 (38%) men were included. Factors studied for gender differences are shown in Table 1. Women had significantly more tender (11 vs 3 p 0.001) and swollen (10 vs 3, p 0.013) joints, worse VAS (Visual Analogue Scale 0-10) pain (6 vs 5, p <0.001), higher ESR (20 vs 11, p 0.001) and worse DAPSA(Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis) (33 vs 18 p 0.006) and presented with more enthesitis (32.5% vs 13.5%, p 0.013). In contrast, men achieved Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) more frequently (26.9% vs 3.6% p<0.001)and had significantly more comorbidities than women. Polyarthritic disease was more frequent in women (62% vs 31%), although at non-significant levels.Conclusion:Male patients with PsA have more comorbidities, while female patients have greater disease activity, worse patient reported outcomes and achieve MDA less frequently.References:[1]Determinants of Patient-Reported Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease: An Analysis of the Association with Gender in 458 Patients from 14 Countries.[2]Orbai AM, Perin J, et al Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1002/acr.24090.FactorWomen (n=83)Men (n=52)P valueMedian (25th-75thpercentile)Age55.1 (46.8-63)56.6 (50-65.7)0.419*BMI27.9 (24.9-35)30.1 (26.8-33.3)0.181#Pso duration/ PsA duration (years)8.3 (3.9-24.5)/ 2.4 (0-5.7)14.3 (4.7-22.7)/ 2.8 (0-6.4)0.451#/0.605#Smoking (Packyears)15 (5-30)27.5 (0-46)0.002#TJC/SJC11 (4-16)/ 10 (5-17)3 (0-13)/ 3 (0-14)0.001#/0.013#VASPain/ VASGA6 (5-8)/ 5 (3-6)5 (1-6)/ 4 (2-5)<0.001*/0.121*CRP/ ESR1.4 (0.4-3.2)/20(11-33)1.1 (0.2-2.7)/ 11 (7-18)0.398#/0.001#BSA/PASI0 (0-2)/0(0-2)2 (0-6)/1(0-4.8)0.139#/0.258#DAPSA33 (24.1-45)18 (9.3-45)0.006#n (%)Enthesitis/ Dactylitis27 (32.5)/ 20 (24.1)7 (13.5)/ 10 (19.2)0.013***/ 0.508***Dyslipidemia33 (40.2)31 (59.6)0.029***Liver3 (3.6)7 (13.5)0.046**Eyes0 (0)3 (5.8)0.055**Uricemia3 (3.6)8 (15.4)0.023**Depression or anxiety16 (19.3)11 (21.1)0.817***CAD2 (2.4)12 (23.1)<0.001**DM14 (16.9)12 (23.1)0.392MDA3 (3.6)14 (26.9)<0.001*: T-test with unequal variances;#: Mann-Whitney test; **: Fisher’s exact test; ***: Pearson chi2 test;Pso: Psoriasis; PsA: Psoriatic arthritis; BMI: Body mass index; TJC: Tender joint count; SJC: Swollen joint count; VASPain: Visual analogue scale 0-10 for pain; VASGA: Visual analogue scale 0-10 for general assessement; CRP: C-reactive protein; ESR: Erythrocyte sedimentation rate; BSA: Body surface area; PASI: Psoriasis area severity index; DAPSA: Disease activity in psoriatic arthritis; CAD: Coronary artery disease; DM: Diabetes mellitus; MDA: Minimal disease activity;Disclosure of Interests:ALEXANDROS GRIVAS: None declared, IRENE KAPNIARI: None declared, KIMON TZANNIS: None declared, Dimitrios Tseronis: None declared, Michail Aggelakos: None declared, Dimitra Kassara: None declared, KATERINA HAVATZA: None declared, Sofia Flouda: None declared, Dionysis Nikolopoulos: None declared, Theofanis Karageorgas: None declared, EVAGELIA PAPADAVID: None declared, DIMITRIOS BOUMPAS Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grant support from various pharmaceutical companies, PELAGIA KATSIMPRI: None declared

Background:Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) can first present with severe or critical disease leading to hospitalization. Prompt recognition of the disease in hospitalized patients may lead to early institution of treatment and improve outcomes. We have recently developed a clinician-friendly algorithm for SLE diagnosis based on classical clinical and serological SLE features [SLE Risk Probability Index (SLERPI)]1.Objectives:To determine the clinical phenotype of SLE patients first diagnosed during hospitalization, the interval between hospitalization and SLE diagnosis and the potential impact of SLERPI on early diagnosis.Methods:Mixed prospective (from June 2020 to January 2021) and retrospective study of SLE patients from “Attikon” cohort (n=820)2. Clinical phenotype was divided into 10 core domains (neuropsychiatric, thrombosis, nephritis, serosal, haematologic, pulmonary, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, skin-joints, other). Chart review and patient interview was performed to assess the lag time between 1) the onset of symptoms and 2) the hospitalization and the final diagnosis. Demographic and clinical characteristics, SLERPI and SLICC damage index were recorded for each patient at the time of diagnosis. SLE diagnosis was based on at least one of the three existing classification criteria.Results:Out of 820 SLE patients, 202 (24.6%) diagnosed during hospitalization were included. Among them, 185 patients (91.5%) were hospitalized because of a lupus related feature, while in the remaining 17 SLE patients, hospitalization was due to non-lupus related manifestations. The most common lupus-related clinical phenotype leading to hospital admission was neuropsychiatric lupus (n=51, 25.2%) with cerebrovascular events constituting the dominant clinical syndrome (n=8/51). Thrombotic events (n=32, 15.8%), mainly pulmonary embolism (n=20/32), cytopenias (n=32, 15.8%), lupus nephritis (n=30, 14.8%), skin-joint disease (n=26, 12.8%) and serositis (n=24, 11.8%) were also common as dominant manifestations. Pulmonary disease (n=16, 7.9%), heart disease (n= 4, 1.9%) and gastrointestinal disease (n=2, 0.9%) were less common. On admission, 11.3% of patients (n=23) had symptoms from at least 2 clinical domains as defined. Most patients (93.5%) had multisystem disease while only 6.5% had organ-dominant disease. Early diagnosis (within 3 months from hospitalization) was established in 86.6% while 27 patients had their SLE diagnosis more than 3 months from hospitalization. The mean lag time between the hospitalization and the diagnosis was approximately 14 months (SD 19.9). Overall, the mean interval between the onset of symptoms and the diagnosis was 48.2 months (SD 73.2). Importantly, a SLERPI >7 (suggesting probable SLE) at hospitalization was present in 92.5% of SLE patients with delayed diagnosis.Conclusion:One out of four SLE patients first present with moderate to severe disease necessitating hospitalization, while in approximately 15% of such patients, diagnosis is initially missed. Application of the SLERPI may facilitate early SLE diagnosis.References:[1]Adamichou C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021; DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219069.[2]D Nikolopoulos et al. Lupus 2020; doi: 10.1177/0961203320908932.Acknowledgements:This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 742390)Disclosure of Interests:None declared

No abstract

No abstract