Background Various observations have suggested that the course of COVID-19 might be less favourable in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases receiving rituximab compared with those not receiving rituximab. We aimed to investigate whether treatment with rituximab is associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.Methods In this cohort study, we analysed data from the French RMD COVID-19 cohort, which included patients aged 18 years or older with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the severity of COVID-19 in patients treated with rituximab (rituximab group) compared with patients who did not receive rituximab (no rituximab group). Severe disease was defined as that requiring admission to an intensive care unit or leading to death. Secondary objectives were to analyse deaths and duration of hospital stay. The inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method was used to adjust for 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 [rheumatoid arthritis vs others]). Odds ratios and hazard ratios and their 95% CIs were calculated as effect size, by dividing the two population mean differences by their SD. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04353609.

The anti-von Willebrand factor nanobody caplacizumab was licensed for adults with immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) based on prospective controlled trials. However, few data are available on post-marketing surveillance. We treated 90 iTTP patients with a compassionate frontline "triplet regimen" associating therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), immunosuppression with corticosteroids and rituximab, and caplacizumab. Outcomes were compared to 180 historical patients treated with the standard frontline treatment (TPE and corticosteroids, with rituximab as salvage therapy). The primary outcome was a composite of refractoriness and death within 30 days since diagnosis. Key secondary outcomes were exacerbations, time to platelet count recovery, the number of TPE and the volume of plasma required to achieve durable remission. The percentage of patients in the triplet regimen with the composite primary outcome was 2.2% vs. 12.2% in historical patients (p=0.01). One elderly patient in the triplet regimen died of pulmonary embolism. Patients from this cohort experienced less exacerbations (3.4% vs. 44%, p<0.01); they recovered durable platelet count 1.8 times faster than historical patients (95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.36, p<0.01), with fewer TPE sessions and lower plasma volumes (p<0.01 both). The number of days in hospital was 41% lower in the triplet regimen than in the historical cohort (13 days vs. 22 days, p <0.01). Caplacizumab-related adverse events occurred in 46 patients (51%), including 13 major or clinically relevant non-major hemorrhagic events. Associating caplacizumab to TPE and immunosuppression, by addressing the three processes of iTTP pathophysiology, prevents unfavorable outcomes and alleviates the burden of care.

No abstract

No abstract

Background:The prevalence, prognostic role, and diagnostic value of blood pressure in immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) and other thrombotic microangiopathies (TMAs) remain unclear.Methods: Using a national cohort of iTTP (n = 368), Shigatoxin-induced hemolytic uremic syndrome (n = 86), atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (n = 84), and hypertensionrelated thrombotic microangiopathy (n = 25), we sought to compare the cohort's blood pressure profile to assess its impact on prognosis and diagnostic performances. Results: Patients with iTTP had lower blood pressure than patients with other TMAs, systolic (130 [interquartile range (IQR) 118-143] vs 161 [IQR 142-180] mmHg) and diastolic (76 [IQR 69-83] vs 92 [IQR 79-105] mmHg, both p < 0.001). The best threshold for iTTP diagnosis corresponded to a systolic blood pressure <150 mmHg. iTTPpatients presenting with hypertension had a significantly poorer survival (hazard ratio 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.07-3.04), and this effect remained significant after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio = 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.30).Addition of a blood pressure criterion modestly improved the French clinical score to predict a severe A disintegrin and metalloprotease with thrombospondin type 1 deficiency in patients with an intermediate score (i.e., either platelet count <30 × 10 9 /L or serum creatinine <200 µM).Conclusions: Elevated blood pressure at admission affects the prognosis of iTTP patients and may help discriminate them from other TMA patients. Particular attention should be paid to blood pressure and its management in these patients.