Background The COVID-19 pandemic has raised numerous questions among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases regarding potential reciprocal effects of COVID-19 and their underlying disease, and potential effects of immunomodulatory therapy on outcomes related to COVID-19. The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and factors associated with symptomatic COVID-19 in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are still unclear. The Euro-COVIMID study aimed to determine the serological and clinical prevalence of COVID-19 among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, as well as factors associated with COVID-19 occurrence and the impact of the pandemic in its management. Methods In this multicentre cross-sectional study, patients aged 18 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren's syndrome, or giant cell arteritis were recruited from six tertiary referral centres in France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the UK. Demographics, comorbidities, treatments, and recent disease flares, as well as information on COVID-19 symptoms, were collected through a questionnaire completed by participants. SARS-CoV-2 serology was systematically tested. The main outcome was the serological and clinical prevalence of COVID-19. Factors associated with symptomatic COVID-19 were assessed by multivariable logistic regression, and incidence of recent disease flares, changes in treatments for underlying disease, and the reasons for treatment changes were also assessed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04397237 . Findings Between June 7 and Dec 8, 2020, 3136 patients with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease answered the questionnaire. 3028 patients (median age 58 years [IQR 46–67]; 2239 [73·9%] women and 789 [26·1%] men) with symptomatic COVID-19, serological data, or both were included in analyses. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 166 (5·5% [95% CI 4·7–6·4]) of 3018 patients who had serology tests. Symptomatic COVID-19 occurred in 122 (4·0% [95% CI 3·4–4·8]) of 3028 patients, of whom 24 (19·7%) were admitted to hospital and four (3·3%) died. Factors associated with symptomatic COVID-19 were higher concentrations of C-reactive protein (odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 1·05–1·33; p=0·0063), and higher numbers of recent disease flares (1·27, 1·02–1·58; p=0·030), whereas use of biological therapy was associated with reduced risk (0·51, 0·32–0·82; p=0·0057). At least one disease flare occurred in 654 (21·6%) of 3028 patients. Over the study period, 519 (20·6%) of 2514 patients had treatment changes, of which 125 (24·1%) were due to the pandemic. Interpretation This study provides key insights into the epidemiology and risk factors of COVID-19 among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Overall, immunosuppressants do not seem to be deleterious...
Background:Radiosynovectomy (RS) is a useful for treating inflammatory arthritis that fail conventional treatments. The main isotope used is Yttrium-90 on large joints as knees, whereas Erbium-169 and Renium-186 are more common in small and medium sized joints respectively.RS is a safe procedure since the isotopes cannot escape the synovial capsule or be absorbed into circulation. It is, however, lethal against cells within the inflamed joint.The most common rheumatic disease treated with RS is rheumatoid arthritis (RA), followed by axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) and idiopathic juvenile arthritis (JIA). It has also been used on persistent synovitis after joint replacements, pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) and undifferentiated arthritis.Objectives:To describe the experience in RS of a tertiary rheumatology center and compare patients with and without clinical response to treatment in the following 12 months.Methods:Observational retrospective study between May 31st 2013 and October 31st 2019. We collected demographic variables, data about the disease of the patient, the joints affected, isotope utilized, presence of Baker’s cyst, systemic treatment received, need of additional infiltrations (before and after), complications and any changes in medication up to a year after the procedure.All the RS were performed ambulatory and the radioisotope infiltration was guided by ultrasound, with 40mg of triamcinolone infiltrated after.SPSS v23 was used for statistical analysis; with Chi2 for qualitative variables and Student’s T distribution for quantitative variables.Results:We evaluated 67 joints in 49 patients in total. All of them were refractory to conventional treatment. 44 patients (65.7%) were women, median of 53.4 years of age (IQ 43.4-67.1).The median disease duration was 12.5 years and RS seemed to fare better the longer the patient had the disease (median of 13.5 years vs 6.5 years p<0.001).The joints infiltrated where 46 (68.6%) knees, 14 (20.9%) wrists and 7 (15.2%) elbows. Out of the knees, 16 (34.8%) belonged to RA patients with effective response in 14 (87,5%). 100% of elbows had an effective response, of them 6 (85.7%) had RA. However, even when 9 (64.2%) wrists also had RA as diagnosis, only 3 (21.4%) were effective.Of the PVNS, 6 out of 8 (75%) had no clinical response, as shown in Table 1.Table 1.RS response compared to clinical diagnosis.TOTALEFFECTIVEINEFFECTIVEp 67 (100%)46 (68.6%)21 (31.3%)Inflammatory Arthritides(RA + PsA + SpA + sJIA), (%)52 (77.6)39 (75%)13 (25%)<0.0001RA (%)30 (44.7)22 (73.3)8 (26.6)<0.001RA positive ACPA/FR21 (70)15 (71.4)6 (28.6)<0.0001Psoriasic arthritis (PsA) (%)6 (9)4 (66.6)2 (33.3)0.42SpA (%)10 (14.9)8 (80)2 (20)0.45sJIA (%)6 (9)5 (83.3)1 (16.6)0.55PVNS (%)8 (11.9)2 (25)6 (75)<0.001Inespecific monoarthritis (%)3 (4.4)3 (100)0 (0)0.23OA + Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition (CPPD) (%)4 (5.9)2 (50)2 (50)0.33Intra articular corticosteroids were needed before RS, with no differences in effective and ineffective joints; however after RS it was significantly lower in effective joints in the first six months (0% vs 43% p<0.0001) and remained so in the following 6 months (0% vs 19% p<0.0001)Only 13 (28%) patients with effective RS needed to change systemic treatment compared to 10 (43%) of those ineffective (p<0.0001). None of the patients with RS had any complication after the procedure during follow up.Conclusion:Our study showed that knees were the main joint infiltrated and they had an overall good response to treatment, especially if the diagnosis was RA.Patients with effective procedures needed leest treatment changes and significantly less corticosteroids infiltrations.In our study, RS in PVNS was significantly less effective than in inflammatory arthritis (25% vs 75% p<0.0001) and RA seemed to have the best response overall.References:[1]Liepe K. Efficacy of radiosynovectomy in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2012 Oct; 32(10):3219-24.[2]Ćwikła JB, Żbikowski P, Kwiatkowska B, Buscombe JR, Sudoł-Szopińska I. Radiosynovectomy in rheumatic diseases. J Ultrason. 2014 Sep; 14(58):241-51.Disclosure of Interests:None declared
Background:Patients with inflammatory arthralgia (IA) are considered to be at increased risk for progression to RA. Ultrasound (US) has shown high sensitivity to detect synovitis compared with physical examination. Thus, US is recommended to identify subclinical synovitis in patients without clinical signs of inflammation.Objectives:To determine the frequency and pattern of US detected active inflammation in patients with IA and investigate factors contributing to predict this outcome.Methods:An US clinic is scheduled in an academic center running twice every week. A retrospective analysis of our US unit cohort during a period of 12 months was undertaken. Patients with IA and no previous diagnosis of inflammatory arthropathies were included for analysis. Inclusion criteria of IA definition included: severe symptoms presenting in the morning, duration of morning stiffness ≥60 min, symptoms predominantly located in MCP joints and absence of clinically detected synovitis by the referral rheumatologist. The following routinely collected variables were included in the analysis: demographics, clinical features and laboratory tests. Patients underwent bilateral US examination of hands and/or feet according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) guidelines. The presence of synovitis and tenosynovitis was assessed on a semi quantitative scale (0–3) for Grey Scale(GS)/Power Doppler(PD). Active inflammation was defined as PD synovitis and/or tenosynovitis >1 at any location. First, differences between groups were tested using chi-squared/Fisher and Student-t tests in the univariate analysis. Second, multivariate logistic regression models were employed to investigate the association between possible predictive factors of US active inflammation.Results:A total of 110 patients were included in the analysis. Mean age was 53.6±15.6 years, 80 (72.7%) were females, and mean symptoms duration was 11.7±9.9 months (Table1). A total of 76 (69.1%) patients presented with a polyarticular arthralgia pattern. US active inflammation were present in 38 (34.5%) patients (28.2% showed PD synovitis and 19.1% PD tenosynovitis). Hands were most commonly involved with PD synovitis at wrists in 18.2% and at MCP in 14.5% of patients. For PD tenosynovitis, the flexor MCP 2-5 (4.5%) and 6th extensor tenosynovitis (5.5 %) were the most frequent affected locations. Only 9 (8.2%) patients had erosions in hands and/or feet at baseline examination. In the univariate analysis, the higher ESR values, the shorter time from symptoms onset and the presence of ACPA were significantly associated with the presence of US active inflammation (p<0.001, p=0.035 and p=0.01, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, only ACPA and ESR values (OR=1,0003; 95%CI 1,000-1,006 and OR=1.054; 95%CI 1.016-1.094), remained significantly associated with the detection of US active inflammation.Conclusion:US features of active inflammation are found in 1 over 3 patients with IA being PD synovitis the most common finding, specially at the wrists and MCP joints. Higher ESR and ACPA values are significantly associated with the presence of US active inflammation. Thus, we strongly recommend the use of PD US to detect subclinical inflammation in at-risk patients with IA with no sign of inflammation on clinical examination, especially those with high ESR and ACPA values.Table 1.Baseline characteristics of patients with IATotaln= 110US inflammatoryfindingsn= 38 (34.5%)Non-US inflammatoryfindingsn=72 (65.5%)pAge53.6 ± 15.657.2±16.251.6±13.40.071SexFemale80 (72.7%)26 (68.4%)54 (75%)0.461Smokingn= 87Non smoker45 (51.7%)12 (44.4%)33 (55%)0.412Smoker34 (39.1%)11 (40.7%)23 (38.3%)Former smoker8 (9.2%)4 (14.8%)4 (6.7%)ExtensionMonoarticular12 (10.9%)6 (15.8%)6 (8.3%)0.176Oligoarticular 22 (20%)10 (26.3%)12 (16.7%)Polyarticular76 (69.1%)22 (57.9%) 54 (75%)Time (months)from symptoms onset11.7 ± 9.99.1±8.113±10.50.035ESR (mm/h) n=4524.7 ± 18.233.1±21.820.3 ±14.4<0.001RF (IU/mL) n=5339.1 ± 230.528.5±5645.1±286.10.647ACPA (IU/mL) n=5698.1 ± 331.2209.4±488.426±125.20.01Disclosure of Interests:None declared
BackgroundUltrasound (US) is a valid imaging tool to detect signs of giant cell arteritis (GCA). Although the halo sign has always been considered the most useful finding for GCA diagnosis, modern high frequency transducers are able to precisely measure the intima-media thickness (IMT) of cranial and extracranial arteries. However, data on optimal cut-off values for IMT to differentiate patients and controls in clinical practice are limited.ObjectivesTo determine the optimal cut-off value for IMT of cranial and extracranial arteries in patients with suspected GCA.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational study of patients referred to our US fast-track clinic with suspected GCA. All patients underwent bilateral US examination of the cranial and extracranial (carotid, subclavian and axillary) arteries within 24 hours per protocol. The exam was performed using an EsaoteMyLab8 with a 12-18 MHz frequency transducer for cranial arteries and an 8-14 frequency transducer for extracranial arteries. The IMT was measured in gray scale mode and the presence of a non-compressible halo sign was checked in all arteries. The gold standard for GCA diagnosis was clinical confirmation by the referring rheumatologist after 6 months follow-up. Mean IMT values of each artery were compared between patients with and without GCA by independent samples T-test. Receiver operating characteristics analysis was performed and the Youden index was used to determine the optimal cut-off value for IMT of each artery.ResultsOf the 157 patients with suspected GCA (67.5% female, mean age 73.7 years) referred to the fast-track clinic, 47 (29.9%) had GCA clinical confirmation after 6 months. 41 (87.2%) patients with GCA had positive US findings (61.7% had cranial involvement, 44.7% extracranial involvement and 19.1% a mixed pattern of cranial and extracranial arteries). The following IMT cut-off values showed the highest diagnostic accuracy: 0.44mm for the common superficial temporal artery; 0.34 mm for the frontal branch; 0.36 mm for the parietal branch; 1.1 mm for the carotid artery: 1 mm for the subclavian and axillary arteries. The area under the ROC curve of the IMT for a clinical diagnosis of GCA was 0.984 (95% CI 0.959 - 1) for common superficial temporal artery, 0.989 (95% CI 0.976 -1) for frontal branch, 0.991 (95% CI 0.980 - 1) for parietal branch, 0.977 (95% CI 0.961 – 0.993) for carotid, 0.99 (95% CI 0.979 - 1) for subclavian and 0.996 (95% CI 0.991 -1) for axillary arteries (Table 1).Table 1.Optimal IMT cut-off values for cranial and extracranial arteriesArterySidePatients without GCAPatients with GCACut-off (mm)AUC (CI 95%)Sensitivity (%)Specificity (%)Common superficialtemporal artery mm, mean (SD)Right0.33 (0.06)0.68 (0.28)0.430.997 (0.988 -1)10097.1Left0.35 (0.11)0.57 (0.21)0.450.966 (0.905 -1)10092.3Both0.34 (0.08)0.63 (0.25)0.440.984 (0.959 -1)94.795.1Frontal branch mm, mean (SD)Right0.26 (0.05)0.4 (0.18)0.340.994 (0.983 -1)10097.1Left0.27 (0.05)0.4 (0.18)0.340.985 (0.962 -1)10096.1Both0.26 (0.05)0.4 (0.18)0.340.989 (0.976 -1)10096.6Parietal branch mm, mean (SD)Right0.27 (0.05)0.43 (0.18)0.360.994 (0.981 -1)10098.9Left0.27 (0.05)0.41 (0.16)0.360.987 (0.967 -1)10097.6Both0.27 (0.05)0.42 (0.17)0.360.991 (0.980 -1)10098.3Carotid mm, mean (SD)Right0.8 (0.17)0.88 (0.29)10.974 (0.949 – 0.999)10092.6Left0.82 (0.15)1 (0.42)1.20.982 (0.961 - 1)90.996.2Both0.81 (0.16)0.96 (0.36)1.10.977 (0.961 – 0.993)9094Subclavian mm, mean (SD)Right0.74 (0.18)0.99 (0.44)10.987 (0.97 - 1)10093.4Left0.67 (0.17)0.9 (0.35)1.10.991 (0.975 - 1)10098.3Both0.7 (0.18)0.94 (0.4)10.99 (0.979 - 1)10096Axillary mm, mean (SD)Right0.69 (0.16)0.99 (0.5)10.992 (0.982 - 1)10096Left0.67 (0.17)0.99(0.49)10.998 (0.995 -1)10098.3Both0.68 (0.17)0.99 (0.49)10.996 (0.991 -1)10097.1ConclusionDifferent IMT cut-off values for each artery are necessary to establish a correct US diagnosis of GCA. These proposed IMT cut-off values may help to improve the diagnostic accuracy of US in clinical practice.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared
Background:Giant cell arteritis (GCA) may be divided into cranial, and extracranial GCA. Tocilizumab (TCZ) has shown efficacy and safety in GCA and other large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) (1-5).Objectives:To compare the efficacy of TCZ in cranial and extracranial GCA.Methods:Multicenter observational study of 312 patients with GCA treated with TCZ. They were divided into 3 groups a) only cranial (cGCA), b) only extracranial (ecGCA), c) mixed affection (mixGCA). GCA was diagnosed by a) ACR criteria, and/or b) positive temporal artery biopsy, and/or c) LVV by imaging. Remission and sustained remission was defined according to EULAR definitions (1). In ecGCA and mixGCA we also studied the improvement (complete or partial) by imaging techniques.Results:We studied 312 patients (218 females; mean age, 73.4±9.6 years). TABLE shows the main features of the 3 groups. Remission at month 6 was higher in cGCA, as well as the sustained remission at month12 (FIGURE). At 18 and 24months, were similar in the 3 groups. Improvement by imaging techniques was partial/complete at 6,12,18 and 24 months, in 50%/0%,71%/0%, 61%/15% and 67%/17% respectively, in ecGCA, and in 75%/0%,53%/18%, 64%/12% and 50%/28% in mixGCA.Table 1.Main features of 312 patients at TCZ onset.Cranial GCA(n=152)Extracranial GCA(n=49)Mixed GCA(n=111)Cranial vs Extracranial GCApAge at TCZ onset, years, mean± SD76.0±8.265.4±12.273.5±8.10.000*Sex, female/male, n (% female)105/47 (69)33/16 (67)80/31 (72)0.960Time from diagnosis to TCZ onset (months, median [IQR]6 [2-21]7 [2-20]9 [3-25]0.765Biopsy-proven GCA, n (%)87/128 (68)0 (0)50/87 (57)0.000*Systemic manifestations at TCZ onset109 (72)32 (65)84 (76)0.501Fever, n (%)18 (12)1 (2)8 (7)0.048*Constitutional syndrome, n (%)52 (34)16 (33)47 (42)0.933PmR, n (%)88 (58)29 (59)71 (64)0.999Ischemic manifestations at TCZ onset117 (77)0 (0)70 (63)0.000*Visual involvement, n (%)31 (20)0 (0)16 (14)0.000*Headache, n (%)103 (85)0 (0)63 (57)0.000*Jaw claudication, n (%)39 (26)0 (0)21 (19)0.000*Acute phase reactantsESR, mm/1st hour, median [IQR]28 [9-53]24 [10-43]28 [15-48]0.462CRP, mg/dL, median [IQR]1.2 [0.3-3.4]0.7 [0.4-1.8]1.6 [0.4-3.8]0.153Prednisone dose at TCZ onset, mean ± SD26.2±17.615.4±14.220.1±14.90.000*TCZmono/TCZcombo, n (% TCZ mono)116/36 (76)26/23 (53)69/42 (62)0.003*Follow-up (months), mean ± SD27.3±21.132.7±23.327.9±22.00.143Figure 1.Remission and sustained remission of cGCA, ecGCA and mixGCA according to EULAR (1). In the first 3 months we only could assess cGCA because in ecGCA and mixGCA a control imaging was not performedConclusion:TCZ seems to be effective in all phenotypes but it is faster in cGCA in reaching remission. However, improvement by imaging techniques was partial and very rarely complete in ecGCA and mixGCA.References:[1]Hellmich B, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020; 79: 19-30.[2]Stone JH, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 317-28.[3]Calderón-Goercke M, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2019; 49:126-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2019.01.003.[4]Prieto Peña D et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2020 Nov 27. PMID: 33253103.[5]Loricera J, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2016; 34:S44-53. PMID: 27050507Disclosure of Interests:Lara Sanchez-Bilbao: None declared, Javier Loricera: None declared, Vicente Aldasoro: None declared, Juan Pablo Valdivieso-Achá: None declared, Ignacio Villa-Blanco: None declared, Olga Maiz: None declared, Rafael Melero: None declared, Clara Moriano: None declared, Julio Sánchez: None declared, Eugenio de Miguel: None declared, Eva Perez-Pampín: None declared, Juan Ramón De Dios: None declared, Juan Carlos Nieto González: None declared, Eva Galíndez-Agirregoikoa: None declared, Patricia Moya: None declared, Francisca Sivera: None declared, José Luis Andréu Sánchez: None declared, Valvanera Pinillos: None declared, Andrea García-Valle: None declared, Paloma Vela-Casasempere: None declared, Noelia Alvarez-Rivas: None declared, Marcelino Revenga: None declared, Sara Manrique Arija: None declared, Carlos Fernández-López: None declared, Enrique Raya: None declared, Cristina Hidalgo: None declared, Ruth López-González: None declared, Cristina Campos Fernández: None declared, Antonio Juan-Mas: None declared, Beatriz Arca: None declared, Iñigo Rua-Figueroa: None declared, María Dolors Boquet: None declared, Antonio García: None declared, Adela Gallego: None declared, Eva Salgado-Pérez: None declared, Miguel A González-Gay Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, Celgene and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD, Jansen and Roche, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD and Roche
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.