Citations

Abstract Objectives Disease flares in the post–coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination period represent a prominent concern, though risk factors are poorly understood. We studied these flares among patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) and other autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). Methods The COVAD-1 and -2 global surveys were circulated in early 2021 and 2022, respectively, and we captured demographics, comorbidities, AIRDs details, COVID-19 infection history and vaccination details. Flares of IIMs were defined as (a) patient self-reported, (b) immunosuppression (IS) denoted, (c) clinical sign directed and (d) with >7.9-point minimal clinically significant improvement difference worsening of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) PROMISPF10a score. Risk factors of flares were analysed using regression models. Results Of 15 165 total respondents, 1278 IIMs (age 63 years, 70.3% female, 80.8% Caucasians) and 3453 AIRDs were included. Flares of IIM were seen in 9.6%, 12.7%, 8.7% and 19.6% patients by definitions (a) to (d), respectively, with a median time to flare of 71.5 (10.7–235) days, similar to AIRDs. Patients with active IIMs pre-vaccination (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.03, 1.6, P = 0.025) were prone to flares, while those receiving rituximab (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1, 0.7, P = 0.010) and AZA (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1, 0.8, P = 0.016) were at lower risk. Female gender and comorbidities predisposed to flares requiring changes in IS. Asthma (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.05, 2.50, P = 0.028) and higher pain visual analogue score (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.11, 1.27, P < 0.001) were associated with disparity between self-reported and IS-denoted flares. Conclusion A diagnosis of IIMs confers an equal risk of flares in the post–COVID-19 vaccination period to AIRDs, with active disease, female gender and comorbidities conferring a higher risk. Disparity between patient- and physician-reported outcomes represents a future avenue for exploration.

Abstract Objective Flares of autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) following COVID-19 vaccination are a particular concern in vaccine-hesitant individuals. Therefore, we investigated the incidence, predictors and patterns of flares following vaccination in individuals living with AIRDs, using global COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) surveys. Methods The COVAD surveys were used to extract data on flare demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 history, and vaccination details for patients with AIRDs. Flares following vaccination were identified as patient-reported (a), increased immunosuppression (b), clinical exacerbations (c) and worsening of PROMIS scores (d). We studied flare characteristics and used regression models to differentiate flares among various AIRDs. Results Of 15 165 total responses, the incidence of flares in 3453 patients with AIRDs was 11.3%, 14.8%, 9.5% and 26.7% by definitions a–d, respectively. There was moderate agreement between patient-reported and immunosuppression-defined flares (K = 0.403, P = 0.022). Arthritis (61.6%) and fatigue (58.8%) were the most commonly reported symptoms. Self-reported flares were associated with higher comorbidities (P = 0.013), mental health disorders (MHDs) (P < 0.001) and autoimmune disease multimorbidity (AIDm) (P < 0.001). In regression analysis, the presence of AIDm [odds ratio (OR) = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.7; P = 0.003), or a MHD (OR = 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.6; P = 0.007), or being a Moderna vaccine recipient (OR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.2; P = 0.014) were predictors of flares. Use of MMF (OR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.3, 0.8; P = 0.009) and glucocorticoids (OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.8; P = 0.003) were protective. A higher frequency of patients with AIRDs reported overall active disease post-vaccination compared with before vaccination (OR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.5; P < 0.001). Conclusion Flares occur in nearly 1 in 10 individuals with AIRDs after COVID vaccination; people with comorbidities (especially AIDm), MHDs and those receiving the Moderna vaccine are particularly vulnerable. Future avenues include exploring flare profiles and optimizing vaccine strategies for this group.

AbstractObjectivesTo compare pain intensity among individuals with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), other systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), and without rheumatic disease (wAIDs).MethodsData were collected from the COVID‐19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study, an international cross‐sectional online survey, from December 2020 to August 2021. Pain experienced in the preceding week was assessed using numeral rating scale (NRS). We performed a negative binomial regression analysis to assess pain in IIMs subtypes and whether demographics, disease activity, general health status, and physical function had an impact on pain scores.ResultsOf 6988 participants included, 15.1% had IIMs, 27.9% had other AIRDs, and 57.0% were wAIDs. The median pain NRS in patients with IIMs, other AIRDs, and wAIDs were 2.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1.0–5.0), 3.0 (IQR = 1.0–6.0), and 1.0 (IQR = 0–2.0), respectively (P < 0.001). Regression analysis adjusted for gender, age, and ethnicity revealed that overlap myositis and antisynthetase syndrome had the highest pain (NRS = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.5–4.5, and NRS = 3.6, 95% CI = 3.1–4.1, respectively). An additional association between pain and poor functional status was observed in all groups. Female gender was associated with higher pain scores in almost all scenarios. Increasing age was associated with higher pain NRS scores in some scenarios of disease activity, and Asian and Hispanic ethnicities had reduced pain scores in some functional status scenarios.ConclusionPatients with IIMs reported higher pain levels than wAIDs, but less than patients with other AIRDs. Pain is a disabling manifestation of IIMs and is associated with a poor functional status.

Abstract Various intracellular degradation organelles, including autophagosomes, lysosomes, and endosomes, work in tandem to perform autophagy, which is crucial for cellular homeostasis. Altered autophagy contributes to the pathophysiology of various diseases, including cancers and metabolic diseases. This paper aims to describe an approach to reproducibly identify and distinguish subcellular structures involved in macroautophagy. Methods are provided that help avoid common pitfalls. How to distinguish between lysosomes, lipid droplets, autolysosomes, autophagosomes, and inclusion bodies are also discussed. These methods use transmission electron microscopy (TEM), which is able to generate nanometer‐scale micrographs of cellular degradation components in a fixed sample. Serial block face‐scanning electron microscopy is also used to visualize the 3D morphology of degradation machinery using the Amira software. In addition to TEM and 3D reconstruction, other imaging techniques are discussed, such as immunofluorescence and immunogold labeling, which can be used to classify cellular organelles, reliably and accurately. Results show how these methods may be used to accurately quantify cellular degradation machinery under various conditions, such as treatment with the endoplasmic reticulum stressor thapsigargin or ablation of the dynamin‐related protein 1.

Abstract Objective COVID-19 vaccines have a favorable safety profile in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) such as idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs); however, hesitancy continues to persist among these patients. Therefore, we studied the prevalence, predictors and reasons for hesitancy in patients with IIMs, other AIRDs, non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs), using data from the two international COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) e-surveys. Methods The first and second COVAD patient self-reported e-surveys were circulated from March to December 2021, and February to June 2022 (ongoing). We collected data on demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, reasons for hesitancy, and patient reported outcomes. Predictors of hesitancy were analysed using regression models in different groups. Results We analysed data from 18 882 (COVAD-1) and 7666 (COVAD-2) respondents. Reassuringly, hesitancy decreased from 2021 (16.5%) to 2022 (5.1%) (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.30, P &lt; 0.001). However, concerns/fear over long-term safety had increased (OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 2.9, 4.6, P &lt; 0.01). We noted with concern greater skepticism over vaccine science among patients with IIMs than AIRDs (OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.08, 3.2, P = 0.023) and HCs (OR: 4; 95% CI: 1.9, 8.1, P &lt; 0.001), as well as more long-term safety concerns/fear (IIMs vs AIRDs – OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2, 2.9, P = 0.001; IIMs vs HCs – OR: 5.4 95% CI: 3, 9.6, P &lt; 0.001). Caucasians [OR 4.2 (1.7–10.3)] were likely to be more hesitant, while those with better PROMIS physical health score were less hesitant [OR 0.9 (0.8–0.97)]. Conclusion Vaccine hesitancy has decreased from 2021 to 2022, long-term safety concerns remain among patients with IIMs, particularly in Caucasians and those with poor physical function.

Abstract Objective To determine COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse events (AEs) in the seven-day post-vaccination period in patients with SLE vs autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs), and healthy controls (HC). Methods Data were captured through the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) questionnaire (March–December 2021). Multivariable regression models accounted for age, gender, ethnicity, vaccine type and background treatment. Results Among 9462 complete respondents, 583 (6.2%) were SLE patients (mean age: 40.1 years; 94.5% females; 40.5% Asian; 42.9% Pfizer-recipients). Minor AEs were reported by 83.0% of SLE patients, major by 2.6%, hospitalization by 0.2%. AE and hospitalization frequencies were similar between patients with active and inactive SLE. Rashes were more frequent in SLE patients vs HC (OR; 95% CI: 1.2; 1.0, 1.5), chills less frequent in SLE vs AIRDs (0.6; 0.4, 0.8) and nrAIDs (0.5; 0.3, 0.8), and fatigue less frequent in SLE vs nrAIDs (0.6; 0.4, 0.9). Pfizer-recipients reported higher overall AE (2.2; 1.1, 4.2) and injection site pain (2.9; 1.6, 5.0) frequencies than recipients of other vaccines, Oxford/AstraZeneca-recipients more body ache, fever, chills (OR: 2.5, 3.0), Moderna-recipients more body ache, fever, chills, rashes (OR: 2.6, 4.3). Hospitalization frequencies were similar across vaccine types. AE frequencies were similar across treatment groups, although chills were less frequent in antimalarial users vs non-users (0.5; 0.3, 0.9). Conclusion While COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs were reported by four-fifths of SLE patients, those were mostly minor and comparable to AEs reported by healthy individuals, providing reassurance regarding COVID-19 vaccination safety in SLE.

Abstract Objectives The COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune diseases (COVAD) study aimed to assess short-term COVID-19 vaccination-related adverse events (AEs) in RA patients. Methods An online self-reported questionnaire (March–December 2021) was used to capture data related to COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs in RA, other autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) (excluding RA and inflammatory myositis), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs). Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were performed. Results Of the 9462 complete respondents, 14.2% (n = 1347) had been diagnosed with RA; they had a mean (s.d.) age of 50.7 (13.7) years, 74.2% were women and 49.3% were Caucasian. In total, 76.9% and 4.2% of patients with RA reported minor and major AEs, respectively. Patients with active and inactive RA had similar AE and hospitalization frequencies. Overall, AEs were reported more frequently by BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 recipients and less frequently by BBV152 recipients compared with the rest. Major AE and hospitalization frequencies were similar across recipients of different vaccines. Patients receiving methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine reported fewer minor AEs than those patients not on them. Compared with HCs and patients with other AIRDs, patients with RA reported similar total AEs, overall minor AEs, and hospitalizations. Compared with nrAIDs, patients with RA reported lower frequencies of overall AEs, minor AEs (both odds ratio [OR] = 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.9), and injection site pain (OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.8) with similar major AE and hospitalization frequencies. Conclusion Despite the differences in AE frequency across different COVID-19 vaccines, all were well tolerated in patients with RA and were comparable to HCs, providing reassurance as to the safety of COVID-19 vaccination.

Objective: To investigate whether dexmedetomidine (DEX), as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepine (BZD), is superior to BZD alone in critically ill patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). Data Sources: PubMed Central, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar were used as search databases. Specific keywords and MeSH terms were “dexmedetomidine,” “benzodiazepine,” and “alcohol withdrawal syndrome.” The last search was on September 16, 2022. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized/cohort studies exploring the use of DEX in the management of AWS were included. A total of 12 studies were included in the systematic review and 7 in the meta-analysis. Data Synthesis: The intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS) was found to have a mean difference (MD) of 48.06 [37.48, 58.64], P = <0.001 for the cohort subgroup, significantly favoring the DEX arm, but, in contrast, pooled RCT data showed a result of –20.07 [–36.86, –3.28], P = 0.02, a shorter ICU LOS for the DEX arm. Bradycardia and hypotension incidence significantly favored the BZD arm in both subgroups. This study compares the effectiveness of adjunctive DEX in clinical practice and aims to help providers in critical decision-making by compiling and analyzing the best current available evidence of its use in AWS. Conclusions: Based on low to very low level of evidence, adjunctive DEX showed no significant difference for ICU LOS when compared with BZD alone. Pooled randomized trials potentially show a benefit but are similarly limited by their low quality of evidence.