RESUMEN

The objective is to perform a multimodal ophthalmological evaluation, including optical coherence angiography (OCTA), asymptomatic APS secondary to SLE (APS/SLE), and compare to SLE patients and control group (CG). We performed a complete structural/functional ophthalmological evaluation using OCTA/microperimetry exam in all participants. One hundred fifty eyes/75 asymptomatic subjects [APS/SLE (n = 25), SLE (n = 25), and CG (n = 25)] were included. Ophthalmologic abnormalities occurred in 9 (36%) APS/SLE, 11 (44%) SLE, and none of CG (p < 0.001). The most common retinal finding was Drusen-like deposits (DLDs) exclusively in APS/SLE and SLE (16% vs. 24%, p = 0.75) whereas severe changes occurred solely in APS/SLE [2 paracentral acute middle maculopathy (PAMM) and 1 homonymous quadrantanopsia]. A trend of higher frequency of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) triple positivity (100% vs. 16%, p = 0.05) and higher mean values of adjusted Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome Score (aGAPSS) (14 ± 0 vs. 9.69 ± 3.44, p = 0.09) was observed in APS/SLE with PAMM vs. those without this complication. We identified that ophthalmologic retinal abnormalities occurred in more than 1/4 of asymptomatic APS/SLE and SLE. DLDs are the most frequent with similar frequencies in both conditions whereas PAMM occurred exclusively in APS/SLE patients. The possible association of the latter condition with aPL triple positivity and high aGAPSS suggests these two conditions may underlie the retinal maculopathy. Our findings in asymptomatic patients reinforce the need for early surveillance in these patients. Key Points • Retinal abnormalities occur in more than 1/4 of asymptomatic APS/SLE and SLE patients. • The occurrence of PAMM is possibly associated with APS and DLDs with SLE. • Presence of aPL triple positivity and high aGAPSS seem to be risk factors for PAMM.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The determination of durability and vaccine-associated protection is essential for booster doses strategies, however data on the stability of SARS-CoV-2 immunity are scarce. Here we assess anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunogenicity decay and incident cases six months after the 2nd dose of Sinovac-CoronaVac inactivated vaccine (D210) in 828 autoimmune rheumatic diseases patients compared with 207 age/sex-balanced control individuals. The primary outcome is the presence of anti-S1/S2 SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 6 months compared to 6 weeks after 2nd vaccine dose for decay evaluation. Secondary outcomes are presence of neutralizing antibodies, percent inhibition by neutralizing, geometric mean titers and cumulative incident cases at 6 months after 2nd dose. Anti-S1/S2 IgG positivity and titers reduce to 23.8% and 38% in patients (p < 0.001) during the six-month follow up and 20% and 51% in controls (p < 0.001), respectively. Neutralizing antibodies positivity and percent inhibition declines 41% and 54% in patients (p < 0.001) and 39.7% and 47% in controls (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis show males (OR = 0.56;95% CI0.40-0.79), prednisone (OR = 0.56; 95% CI0.41-0.76), anti-TNF (OR = 0.66;95% CI0.45-0.96), abatacept (OR = 0.29; 95% CI0.15-0.56) and rituximab (OR = 0.32;95% CI0.11-0.90) associate with a substantial reduction in IgG response at day 210 in patients. Although cellular immunity was not assessed, a decrease of COVID-19 cases (from 27.5 to 8.1/100 person-years; p < 0.001) is observed despite the concomitant emergence and spread of the Delta variant. Altogether we show a reduction in immunity 6-months of Sinovac-CoronaVac 2nd dose, particularly in males and those under immunosuppressives therapies, without a concomitant rise in COVID-19 cases. (CoronavRheum clinicaltrials.gov:NCT04754698).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The standard of care for thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Prothrombin time, and its corresponding international normalized ratio (INR), is the laboratory test routinely performed to assess anticoagulation. Self-management of VKA therapy using point-of-care (POC) devices seems to be an attractive option. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a POC device (CoaguChek XS) in APS patients by comparing it with venous laboratory INR. Furthermore, we analyzed whether other clinical and laboratory features could interfere with the CoaguChek XS results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a single-center cross-sectional study with 94 APS patients from a tertiary rheumatology clinic performed from August 2014 to March 2015. The comparison between CoaguChek XS and venous laboratory INR results was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (r) followed by the Bland-Altman test. A paired t-test was also applied. A difference of up to ±0.5 INR unit between the two systems was considered clinically acceptable. RESULTS: The mean CoaguChek-INR was 2.94 ± 1.41 and venous laboratory INR was 2.43±0.86, with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.95. Categorizing INR values in ranges (INR <2, INR 2-3, INR 3-4, and INR >4), we found that the INR >4 group presented a lower correlation (r = 0.64) compared to the other ranges (p < 0.05). Although both methods were highly correlated, CoaguChek XS showed higher values than the venous laboratory INR, with an increased average of 0.42 ± 0.54. Therefore, we proposed a simple linear regression model to predict the venous laboratory INR values, using results obtained from CoaguChek XS. A difference ≤0.5 INR unit between the two systems was observed in 57.4% of patients, and the aPL profile did not influence the results. CONCLUSION: Although CoaguChek XS and venous laboratory INR demonstrated a good linear correlation in the group of INR ≤4, extra caution should be taken in APS patients, since a reasonable proportion of patients can present differences in INR results that are not acceptable. We do not recommend routine POC in APS patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This randomized controlled study aimed to investigate whether a single bout of exercise before the homologous booster dose of a SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine could enhance immunogenicity in patients with spondyloarthritis. We selected 60 consecutive patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). Patients assigned to the intervention group performed an exercise bout comprising three exercises. Then, they remained at rest for 1 h before vaccination. The control group remained at rest before vaccination. Immunogenicity was assessed before (Pre) and 1 mo after (Post) the booster using seropositivity rates of total anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG, geometric mean titers of anti-S1/S2 IgG (GMT), frequency of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) positivity, and NAb activity. At Pre, 16 patients from the exercise group and 16 patients from the control group exhibited seropositivity for IgG (59% vs. 57.1%), and 1 mo after the booster dose, seropositivity occurred in 96% versus 100% of the cases. Only 10 patients from the exercise group and 12 patients from the control group showed positive NAb serology at Pre (37% vs. 42.8%). One month following the booster, NAb positivity was 96% versus 93%. GMT was comparable between groups at Pre. At Post, GMT increased similarly in both groups. Likewise, NAb activity was similar between groups at Pre and increased similarly in both of them as a result of the booster (47.5% vs. 39.9%). In conclusion, a single bout of exercise did not enhance immunogenicity to a homologous booster dose of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among patients with spondyloarthritis.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We tested the role of exercise as an adjuvant to a booster of a COVID-19 vaccine. Immunocompromised patients were immunized after an acute bout of exercise or not. Patients exhibited an excellent immunogenicity in response to the booster dose. Exercise did not add to the vaccine effects on IgG or neutralizing antibodies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the immunogenicity pattern induced by the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine CoronaVac (Sinovac Life Sciences, Beijing, China) in SARS-CoV-2 seropositive patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases compared with seropositive controls, seronegative patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, and seronegative controls. METHODS: CoronavRheum is an ongoing, prospective, controlled, phase 4 study, in which patients aged 18 years or older with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, and healthy controls were recruited from a single site (Rheumatology Division of Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo) in São Paulo, Brazil Participants were vaccinated with two doses of CoronaVac (intramuscular injection, 3 µg in 0·5 mL of ß-propiolactone inactivated SARS-CoV-2) on day 0 and on day 28. Blood samples were taken pre-vaccination on day 0, day 28, and also on day 69. For this subgroup analysis, participants were defined as being SARS-CoV-2 seropositive or seronegative prevaccination via anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S)1 or S2 IgG (cutoff of 15·0 arbitrary units [AU] per mL) or neutralising antibody titres (cutoff of ≥30%) and were matched for age and sex, via convenience sampling, in a 1:3:1:1 ratio (seropositive patients to seronegative patients to seropositive controls to seronegative controls). The primary outcomes were rates of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 IgG seropositivity and SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody positivity at day 28 and day 69 and immunogenicity dynamics assessed by geometric mean titres (GMTs) of IgG and median neutralising activity in seropositive patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases compared with seronegative patients and seropositive and seronegative controls. We assessed safety in all participants randomly selected for this subgroup analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04754698, and is ongoing for long-term immunogenicity evaluation. FINDINGS: Between Feb 4 and Feb 8, 2021, 1418 patients and 542 controls were recruited, of whom 1685 received two vaccinations (1193 patients and 492 controls). After random sampling, our immunogenicity analysis population comprised 942 participants, of whom 157 were SARS-CoV-2 seropositive patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, 157 were seropositive controls, 471 were seronegative patients, and 157 were seronegative controls; the median age was 48 years (IQR 38-56) and 594 (63%) were female and 348 (37%) were male. For seropositive patients and controls, an increase in anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 IgG titres (seropositive patients GMT 52·3 [95% CI 42·9-63·9] at day 0 vs 128·9 [105·6-157·4] at day 28; seropositive controls 53·3 [45·4-62·5] at day 0 vs 202·0 [174·8-233·4] at day 28) and neutralising antibody activity (seropositive patients 59% [IQR 39-83] at day 0 vs 82% [54-96] at day 28; seropositive controls 58% [41-79] at day 0 vs 92% [79-96] at day 28), was observed from day 0 to day 28, without further increases from day 28 to day 69 (at day 69 seropositive patients' GMT was 137·1 [116·2-161·9] and neutralising antibody activity was 79% [57-94]); and seropositive controls' GMT was 188·6 [167·4-212·6] and neutralising antibody activity was 92% [75-96]). By contrast, for seronegative patients and controls, the second dose was required for maximum response at day 69, which was lower in seronegative patients than in seronegative controls. GMTs in seronegative patients were 2·3 (95% CI 2·2-2·3) at day 0, 5·7 (5·1-6·4) at day 28, and 29·6 (26·4-33·3) at day 69, and in seronegative controls were 2·3 (2·1-2·5) at day 0, 10·6 (8·7-13·1) at day 28, and 71·7 (63·5-81·0) at day 69; neutralising antibody activity in seronegative patients was 15% (IQR 15-15) on day 0, 15% (15-15) at day 28, and 39% (15-65) at day 69, and in seronegative controls was 15% (15-15) at day 0, 24% (15-37) at day 28, and 61% (37-79) at day 69. Neither seronegative patients nor seronegative controls reached the GMT or antibody activity levels of seropositive patients at day 69. INTERPRETATION: By contrast with seronegative patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, seropositive patients have a robust response after a single dose of CoronaVac. Our findings raise the possibility that the reduced immunogenicity observed in seronegative patients might not be the optimum response potential to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and therefore emphasise the importance of at least a single booster vaccination in these patients. FUNDING: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, and B3-Bolsa de Valores do Brasil. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To date, the only study that has assessed the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 mRNA) vaccine in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) observed a moderate response, but the sample size precluded an accurate analysis of the effect of individual drugs. Therefore, we evaluated the immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac-CoronaVac) and the influence of different medications in SLE. Safety was also assessed. METHODS: We conducted a prospective controlled study of 232 SARS-CoV-2-naive SLE patients and 58 SARS-CoV-2-naive controls who were vaccinated with 2 doses of Sinovac-CoronaVac with a 28-day interval (day 0/day 28 [D0/D28]). Immunogenicity analysis at D0/D28 and D69 included anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG seroconversion (SC) and neutralizing antibodies (NAb) positivity. The influence of individual drugs on immune response and safety was assessed. RESULTS: Patients and controls were well balanced for age (P = 0.771). At D69, SLE patients showed a moderate SC (70.2% versus 98.1%; P < 0.001) and moderate frequency of NAb positivity (61.5% versus 84.6%; P = 0.002), although both frequencies were lower than in controls. Factors associated with lower SC in univariate analysis at D69 were prednisone use (odds ratio [OR] 0.215 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.108-0.427], P < 0.001) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) use (OR 0.201 [95% CI 0.107-0.378], P < 0.001), whereas hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) use led to a 2.5 increase in SC (P = 0.011). SLE patients who were receiving HCQ monotherapy had similar SC to controls at D69 (100% versus 98.1%; P = 1.000). In multivariate analysis, prednisone and MMF use were independently associated with lower SC (P < 0.001) and NAb positivity (P < 0.001). Safety analysis revealed no moderate/severe adverse events. CONCLUSION: Sinovac-CoronaVac has a moderate immunogenicity in SARS-CoV-2-naive SLE patients with an excellent safety profile. We further demonstrate that HCQ may improve SC, whereas prednisone and MMF had a major deleterious effect in vaccine response, reinforcing the need to investigate the role of temporary MMF withdrawal or a vaccine-booster dose (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04754698).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Biologic drugs such as adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab represent major first-line and second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their high cost poses a massive burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The expiration of patents for these biologics has driven the production of biosimilar drugs, which are potentially less costly and remarkably similar, albeit not identical to the reference molecules. This paper aims to outline the protocol of a systematic review that will investigate the efficacy and safety profile of biosimilars compared to biologics (objective 1) and the impact of switching between biosimilar drugs and reference biologics on the management of RA patients (objective 2). METHODS: We will investigate the effects of any biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on RA patients. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs to assess efficacy and safety outcomes and RCTs with two- or multiple-part designs to evaluate the consequences of switching from reference biologics to biosimilar drugs (and vice-versa). Electronic searches will be performed through MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL (from inception to April 2021). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias. The latter will be carried out considering specific domains from equivalence trials and switching studies. Random-effects models will be fitted to obtain summary estimates using either relative risk or standardized mean difference as a metric. The primary outcome will be the rate of treatment success according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), and the co-primary outcome will be the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Conclusions will be based on equivalence hypothesis testing using predefined margins of equivalence elicited from a group of experienced rheumatologists and prior studies. The overall certainty of the evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE system. DISCUSSION: The present investigation proposes a comprehensive, clinician-oriented approach to assess the equivalence and the impact of switching between biosimilars and biologics on the management of patients with RA. Our results will elucidate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity of biosimilars, and the clinical consequences of substituting biologics with biosimilars in the management of RA. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019137152 and CRD42019137155.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

CoronaVac, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has been approved for emergency use in several countries. However, its immunogenicity in immunocompromised individuals has not been well established. We initiated a prospective phase 4 controlled trial (no. NCT04754698, CoronavRheum) in 910 adults with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) and 182 age- and sex-frequency-matched healthy adults (control group, CG), who received two doses of CoronaVac. The primary outcomes were reduction of ≥15% in both anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroconversion (SC) and neutralizing antibody (NAb) positivity 6 weeks (day 69 (D69)) after the second dose in the ARD group compared with that in the CG. Secondary outcomes were IgG SC and NAb positivity at D28, IgG titers and neutralizing activity at D28 and D69 and vaccine safety. Prespecified endpoints were met, with lower anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG SC (70.4 versus 95.5%, P < 0.001) and NAb positivity (56.3 versus 79.3%, P < 0.001) at D69 in the ARD group than in the CG. Moreover, IgG titers (12.1 versus 29.7, P < 0.001) and median neutralization activity (58.7 versus 64.5%, P = 0.013) were also lower at D69 in patients with ARD. At D28, patients with ARD presented with lower IgG frequency (18.7 versus 34.6%, P < 0.001) and NAb positivity (20.6 versus 36.3%, P < 0.001) than that of the CG. There were no moderate/severe adverse events. These data support the use of CoronaVac in patients with ARD, suggesting reduced but acceptable short-term immunogenicity. The trial is still ongoing to evaluate the long-term effectiveness/immunogenicity.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objective: To assess the possible effect of therapy, disease subtype and severity on H1N1 immunogenicity in patients with SSc. Methods: Ninety-two patients and 92 age- and gender-matched healthy controls received adjuvant-free influenza A/California/7/2009 (pH1N1) vaccine. Blood samples were collected immediately before and 3 weeks after vaccination to evaluate antibody responses to the H1N1 virus. Efficacy was assessed by seroprotection (SP) and seroconversion (SC) rates and the factor increase in geometric mean antibody titre. Participants received a 21-day symptom diary card and were instructed to report local and systemic adverse events. Results: SSc patients were predominantly females (91%) and 61% had limited SSc, 12% had severe skin involvement and 57.6% were on immunosuppressive (IS) therapy. SSc patients and controls presented comparable overall SP (P = 0.20) and SC (P = 0.61) rates. Further evaluation of the possible effect of disease and therapy revealed similar rates of SP and SC in patients with dcSSc vs lcSSc (SP P = 0.62 and SC P = 0.66), severe vs mild/moderate skin involvement (SP P = 1 and SC P = 0.45) and with vs without IS (SP P = 0.26 and SC P = 0.10). The frequency of mild local and minor systemic reactions was similar in patients with dcSSC vs lcSSc (P = 0.70 vs 0.32) and in those with and without severe skin involvement (P = 0.59 vs 0.28). Conclusion: The non-adjuvanted influenza H1N1 virus vaccine proved to be safe and effective, independent of SSc clinical subtype, disease severity or therapy. These latter factors do not seem to contribute to mild adverse events observed in SSc. Our data support the annual influenza vaccination recommendation for these patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT01151644.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Abstract Objective To assess the possible effect of therapy, disease subtype and severity on H1N1 immunogenicity in patients with SSc. Methods Ninety-two patients and 92 age- and gender-matched healthy controls received adjuvant-free influenza A/California/7/2009 (pH1N1) vaccine. Blood samples were collected immediately before and 3 weeks after vaccination to evaluate antibody responses to the H1N1 virus. Efficacy was assessed by seroprotection (SP) and seroconversion (SC) rates and the factor increase in geometric mean antibody titre. Participants received a 21-day symptom diary card and were instructed to report local and systemic adverse events. Results SSc patients were predominantly females (91%) and 61% had limited SSc, 12% had severe skin involvement and 57.6% were on immunosuppressive (IS) therapy. SSc patients and controls presented comparable overall SP (P = 0.20) and SC (P = 0.61) rates. Further evaluation of the possible effect of disease and therapy revealed similar rates of SP and SC in patients with dcSSc vs lcSSc (SP P = 0.62 and SC P = 0.66), severe vs mild/moderate skin involvement (SP P = 1 and SC P = 0.45) and with vs without IS (SP P = 0.26 and SC P = 0.10). The frequency of mild local and minor systemic reactions was similar in patients with dcSSC vs lcSSc (P = 0.70 vs 0.32) and in those with and without severe skin involvement (P = 0.59 vs 0.28). Conclusion The non-adjuvanted influenza H1N1 virus vaccine proved to be safe and effective, independent of SSc clinical subtype, disease severity or therapy. These latter factors do not seem to contribute to mild adverse events observed in SSc. Our data support the annual influenza vaccination recommendation for these patients.