Andréoli, Laura

Background/Purpose APS ACTION Registry was created to study the natural course of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) over 10 years in persistently antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) positive patients with or without systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Our primary objective was to compare the characteristics of aPL-positive patients with or without thrombocytopenia (TP) and/or autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA). Methods The registry inclusion criteria are positive aPL based on the Revised Sapporo APS Classification Criteria, tested at least twice within 1 year prior to enrollment. For the primary comparison of demographic, clinical, and serologic characteristics in this retrospective study, we divided patients into two groups: TP/AIHA ever and never. Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count of <100,000 x 10 9 /L tested twice at least 12 weeks apart, and AIHA was defined as anemia with hemolysis and a positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT). For the secondary analysis, we compared patients with TP versus AIHA, and the immunosuppressive use stratified by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification. Results As of April 2022, of 1,039 patients (primary aPL/APS: 618 [59%]; SLE classification: 334 [31%]) included in the registry, 228 (22%) had baseline (historical or current) TP and/or AIHA (TP only: 176 [17%]; AIHA only: 35 [3%], and both: 17 [2%]). Thrombocytopenia and/or AIHA was significantly associated with Asian race, SLE classification, cardiac valve disease, catastrophic/microvascular APS, triple aPL (lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibody, and anti-β 2 -glycoprotein-I antibody) positivity, and SLE-related serologic and inflammatory markers. When 101/618 (16%) primary aPL/APS patients and 101/334 (34%) SLE patients with TP and/or AIHA were compared, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil were more commonly reported in lupus patients, however corticosteroid, intravenous immunoglobulin, and rituximab use were similar between groups. Conclusion In our large multi-center international cohort of persistently aPL-positive patients, approximately one-fifth had active or historical TP and/or AIHA at registry entry; half of these patients had additional SLE. Cardiac valve disease, catastrophic/microvascular APS, and triple aPL-positivity were aPL-related clinical and laboratory manifestations associated with TP and/or AIHA, suggesting a more severe APS clinical phenotype in aPL-patients with TP and/or AIHA.

ObjectiveThe objective was to determine the mortality rate as well as the causes and predictors of death in antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)–positive patients with and without antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification.MethodsThe inclusion criterion for the multicenter international Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) registry is positive aPLs according to the Revised Sapporo Classification Criteria tested within one year before enrollment. Patients are observed every 12 ± 3 months with clinical data and blood collection. For this prospective analysis, we first analyzed the causes of death for patients reported as “deceased.” Secondly, we analyzed risk factors for death using the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and calculated survival probability using the Kaplan‐Meier model based on different age groups.ResultsOf 967 patients, 43 (5%) were deceased after a median follow‐up of 5.3 years. Based on the univariate analysis, deceased patients, compared to living patients, were more likely to be older and have a history of arterial thrombosis, catastrophic APS, concomitant systemic autoimmune diseases (SAIDs), and baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age and for each of the strongest predictors of death, arterial thrombosis (hazard ratio [HR] 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50–5.76), concomitant SAIDs (HR 2.97, 95% 1.56–5.63), and baseline any CVD risk factor (HR 2.43, 95% CI 1.05–5.71) were significantly associated with mortality.ConclusionIn our cohort of persistently aPL‐positive patients, the mortality rate was 5% after a median follow‐up of five years and was highest for patients ≥60 years old at registry entry. History of arterial thrombosis, concomitant SAIDs, and baseline any CVD risk factor independently predicted future death.

AbstractBackgroundThe pandemic presented unique challenges for individuals with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) due to their underlying condition, the effects of immunosuppressive treatments, and increased vaccine hesitancy.ObjectivesThe COVID‐19 vaccination in autoimmune diseases (COVAD) study, a series of ongoing, patient self‐reported surveys were conceived with the vision of being a unique tool to gather patient perspectives on AIRDs. It involved a multinational, multicenter collaborative effort amidst a global lockdown.MethodsLeveraging social media as a research tool, COVAD collected data using validated patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). The study, comprising a core team, steering committee, and global collaborators, facilitated data collection and analysis. A pilot‐tested, validated survey, featuring questions regarding COVID‐19 infection, vaccination and outcomes, patient demographics, and PROs was circulated to patients with AIRDs and healthy controls (HCs).DiscussionWe present the challenges encountered during this international collaborative project, including coordination, data management, funding constraints, language barriers, and authorship concerns, while highlighting the measures taken to address them.ConclusionCollaborative virtual models offer a dynamic new frontier in medical research and are vital to studying rare diseases. The COVAD study demonstrates the potential of online platforms for conducting large‐scale, patient‐focused research and underscores the importance of integrating patient perspective into clinical care. Care of patients is our central motivation, and it is essential to recognize their voices as equal stakeholders and valued partners in the study of the conditions that affect them.

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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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.

Objective To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR. Methods This international multidisciplinary initiative included 4 phases: 1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; 2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; 3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real‐world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus‐based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and 4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators’ consensus as the gold standard. Results The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL‐associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1–7 points each) clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and 2 laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid‐phase enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti–β 2 ‐glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least 3 points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria versus the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% versu s 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% versus 99%. Conclusion These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk‐stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

Abstract Objectives We investigated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine safety in pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID) in the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study. Methods Delayed-onset (&gt;7 days) vaccine-related adverse events (AE), disease flares and AID-related treatment modifications were analysed upon diagnosis of AID vs healthy controls (HC) and the pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of at least one dose of vaccine. Results Among the 9201 participants to the self-administered online survey, 6787 (73.8%) were women. Forty pregnant and 52 breastfeeding patients with AID were identified, of whom the majority had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (100% and 96.2%, respectively). AE were reported significantly more frequently in pregnant than in non-pregnant patients (overall AE 45% vs 26%, P = 0.01; minor AE 40% vs 25.9%, P = 0.03; major AE 17.5% vs 4.6%, P &lt; 0.01), but no difference was found in comparison with pregnant HC. No difference was observed between breastfeeding patients and HC with respect to AE. Post-vaccination disease flares were reported by 17.5% of pregnant and 20% of breastfeeding patients, and by 18.3% of age- and disease-matched non-pregnant and non-breastfeeding patients (n = 262). All pregnant/breastfeeding patients who experienced a disease flare were managed with glucocorticoids; 28.6% and 20% of them required initiation or change in immunosuppressants, respectively. Conclusion This study provides reassuring insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccines administered to women with AID during the gestational and post-partum periods, helping overcome hesitant attitudes, as the benefits for the mother and for the fetus by passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks.

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 &gt;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 &lt; 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 &lt; 0.001) and autoimmune disease multimorbidity (AIDm) (P &lt; 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 &lt; 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.