Citations

Abstract Objectives The objective of this study was to explore the prevalence, characteristics and risk factors of COVID-19 breakthrough infections (BIs) in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) using data from the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study. Methods A validated patient self-reporting e-survey was circulated by the COVAD study group to collect data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination in 2022. BIs were defined as COVID-19 occurring ≥14 days after two vaccine doses. We compared BI characteristics and severity among patients with IIMs, patients with other autoimmune rheumatic and non-rheumatic diseases (AIRD, nrAID), and healthy controls (HCs). Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the risk factors for BI, severe BI ,and hospitalizations among patients with IIMs. Results Among the 9449 included responses, BIs occurred in 1447 respondents (15.3%). The median age was 44 years [interquartile range (IQR) 21], 77.4% were female, and 182 BIs (12.9%) occurred among the 1406 patients with IIMs. Multivariable Cox regression among the data for patients with IIMs showed increasing age to be a protective factor for BIs [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97–0.99], and HCQ and SSZ use were risk factors (HR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.24–2.64, and HR = 3.79, 95% CI = 1.69–8.42, respectively). Glucocorticoid use was a risk factor for a severe BI (HR = 3.61, 95% CI = 1.09–11.8). Non-white ethnicity (HR = 2.61, 95% CI = 1.03–6.59) was a risk factor for hospitalization. Compared with other groups, patients with IIMs required more supplemental oxygen therapy (IIMs = 6.0% vs AIRDs = 1.8%, nrAIDs = 2.2% and HCs = 0.9%), intensive care unit admission (IIMs = 2.2% vs AIRDs = 0.6%, nrAIDs and HCs = 0%), advanced treatment with antiviral or monoclonal antibodies (IIMs = 34.1% vs AIRDs = 25.8%, nrAIDs = 14.6% and HCs = 12.8%) and had more hospitalization (IIMs = 7.7% vs AIRDs = 4.6%, nrAIDs = 1.1% and HCs = 1.5%). Conclusion Patients with IIMs are susceptible to severe COVID-19 BIs. Age and immunosuppressive treatments were related to the risk of BIs.

Abstract Objectives To investigate health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) compared with those with non-IIM autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs) and without autoimmune diseases (controls) using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instrument data obtained from the second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) e-survey database. Methods Demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments and PROMIS instrument data were analysed. Primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis. Results We analysed responses from 1582 IIM, 4700 non-IIM AIRD and 545 nrAID patients and 3675 controls gathered through 23 May 2022. The median GPH scores were the lowest in IIM and non-IIM AIRD patients {13 [interquartile range (IQR) 10–15] IIMs vs 13 [11–15] non-IIM AIRDs vs 15 [13–17] nrAIDs vs 17 [15–18] controls, P < 0.001}. The median GMH scores in IIM patients were also significantly lower compared with those without autoimmune diseases [13 (IQR 10–15) IIMs vs 15 (13–17) controls, P < 0.001]. Inclusion body myositis, comorbidities, active disease and glucocorticoid use were the determinants of lower GPH scores, whereas overlap myositis, interstitial lung disease, depression, active disease, lower PROMIS Physical Function 10a and higher PROMIS Fatigue 4a scores were associated with lower GMH scores in IIM patients. Conclusion Both physical and mental health are significantly impaired in IIM patients, particularly in those with comorbidities and increased fatigue, emphasizing the importance of patient-reported experiences and optimized multidisciplinary care to enhance well-being in people with IIMs.

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.

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 < 0.001). However, concerns/fear over long-term safety had increased (OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 2.9, 4.6, P < 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 < 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 < 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 Introduction Treatment recommendations for Peyronie's Disease (PD) differ based on whether a patient is in the acute/active versus chronic/stable phase of the disease, yet there are no agreed upon criteria for defining these clinical entities. Objectives To review the criteria used to define acute and chronic phase PD in modern PD intervention studies Methods We performed a search engine review to identify indexed publications for PD intervention studies and review articles / meta-analyses from the year 2011-2020. Outcomes results were catalogued and summarized across articles. As a result of the substantial heterogeneity of outcome measures and follow-up intervals, meta-analytic techniques were not applied to the data analysis. Results We identified a total of 104 studies that met inclusion criteria and had available information for review (n = 79 primary intervention studies; n = 25 review articles/meta-analyses/guidelines). Among the queried studies, we were unable to identify a consensus with respect to the criteria used to define acute and chronic phases of PD. 33% of primary intervention studies did not specifically define their criteria for acute and chronic phase PD, despite referencing these populations as part of the inclusion criteria in many instances. Studies used heterogenous criteria including total symptom duration, duration of “stable” symptoms, and presence/absence of pain. Conclusion Due to varying definitions across the literature, we were unable to create a standardized definition of acute and chronic phase Peyronie's in terms of time. Our findings emphasize the need for greater consensus in defining the treatment cohorts with future studies that assess treatment for men with PD.