Citations

Abstract Objectives We aimed to explore current practice and interregional differences in the treatment of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs). We triangulated these observations considering countries' gross national income (GNI), disease subtypes, and symptoms using patient-reported information. Methods A cross-sectional ancillary analysis of the ‘COVID-19 vaccination in auto-immune disease’ (COVAD) e-survey containing demographic characteristics, IIM subtypes (DM, PM, IBM, anti-synthetase syndrome [ASSD], immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy [IMNM], overlap myopathies [OM]), current symptoms (surrogate for organ involvement) and treatments (corticosteroids [CS], immunomodulators [IM], i.e. antimalarials, immunosuppressants [IS], IVIG, biologic treatments and targeted-synthetic small molecules). Treatments were presented descriptively according to continents, GNI, IIM and organ involvement, and associated factors were analysed using multivariable binary logistic regressions. Results Of 18 851 respondents from 94 countries, 1418 with IIM were analysed (age 61 years, 62.5% females). DM (32.4%), IBM (24.5%) and OM (15.8%) were the most common subtypes. Treatment categories included IS (49.4%), CS (38.5%), IM (13.8%) and IVIG (9.4%). Notably, treatments varied across regions, GNI categories (IS mostly used in higher-middle income, IM in lower-middle income, IVIG and biologics largely limited to high-income countries), IIM subtypes (IS and CS associated with ASSD, IM with OM and DM, IVIG with IMNM, and biologic treatments with OM and ASSD) and disease manifestations (IS and CS with dyspnoea). Most inter-regional treatment disparities persisted after multivariable analysis. Conclusion We identified marked regional treatment disparities in a global cohort of IIM. These observations highlight the need for international consensus-driven management guidelines considering patient-centred care and available resources.

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.

AbstractBackgroundWe identify chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) manifestations associated with how rhinologists assess CRS control, with a focus on patient perspectives (patient‐reported CRS control).MethodsFifteen rhinologists were provided with real‐world data from 200 CRS patients. Participating rhinologists first classified patients’ CRS control as “controlled,” “partly controlled,” and “uncontrolled” using seven CRS manifestations reflecting European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) CRS control criteria (nasal obstruction, drainage, impaired smell, facial pain/pressure, sleep disturbance, use of systemic antibiotics/corticosteroids in past 6 months, and nasal endoscopy findings) and patient‐reported CRS control. They then classified patients’ CRS control without knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control. Interrater reliability and agreement of rhinologist‐assessed CRS control with patient‐reported CRS control and EPOS guidelines were determined.ResultsCRS control classification with and without knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control was highly consistent across rhinologists (κw = 0.758). Rhinologist‐assessed CRS control agreed with patient‐reported CRS control significantly better when rhinologists had knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control (κw = 0.736 vs. κw = 0.554, p < 0.001). Patient‐reported CRS control, nasal obstruction, drainage, and endoscopy findings were most strongly associated with rhinologists’ assessment of CRS control. Rhinologists’ CRS control assessments weakly agreed with EPOS CRS control guidelines with (κw = 0.529) and without (κw = 0.538) patient‐reported CRS control. Rhinologists classified CRS as more controlled than EPOS guidelines in almost 50% of cases.ConclusionsThis study directly demonstrates the importance of patient‐reported CRS control as a dominant influence on rhinologists’ CRS control assessment. Knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control may better align rhinologists’ CRS control assessments and treatment decisions with patients’ perspectives.

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.

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.

Lithium has been a cornerstone treatment for bipolar disorder (BD). Despite descriptions in the literature regarding associations between long-term lithium therapy (LTLT) and development of a thyroid disorder (overt/subclinical hypo/hyperthyroidism, thyroid nodule, and goiter) in BD, factors such as time to onset of thyroid abnormalities and impact on clinical outcomes in the course of illness have not been fully characterized. In this study we aimed to compare clinical characteristics of adult BD patients with and without thyroid disorders who were on LTLT. We aimed to identify the incidence of thyroid disorders in patients with BD on LTLT and response to lithium between patients with and without thyroid disorders in BD. The Cox proportional model was used to find the median time to the development of a thyroid disorder. Our results showed that up to 32% of patients with BD on LTLT developed a thyroid disorder, of which 79% developed hypothyroidism, which was corrected with thyroid hormone replacement. We did not find significant differences in lithium response between patients with or without thyroid disorders in BD. Findings from this study suggest that patients with BD and comorbid thyroid disorders when adequately treated have a response to lithium similar to patients with BD and no thyroid disorders.

Fostering pulmonary research for managing pulmonary threat requires a potential alternative approach mimicking the in vivo complexities. This review expounds on lung-on-chip microfluidic simulator devices to foster pulmonary drug discovery and personalized medicine.

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.