| 1. |
- Sen, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Vaccine hesitancy decreases in rheumatic diseases, long-term concerns remain in myositis: a comparative analysis of the COVAD surveys
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Rheumatology (Oxford, England). - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1462-0332 .- 1462-0324. ; 62:10, s. 3291-3301
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveCOVID-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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsWe 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)].ConclusionVaccine 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Aoude, M., et al.
(författare)
-
TREATMENT PATTERNS OF IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES : RESULTS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL COHORT OF OVER 1,400 PATIENTS
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : HighWire Press. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81:Suppl. 1, s. 105-106
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a group of heterogeneous autoimmune disorders with limited standardization of treatment protocols.ObjectivesTo evaluate frequency and patterns of various treatments used for IIM based on disease subtype, world region, and organ involvement.MethodsCross-sectional data from the international CoVAD self-report e-survey1 was extracted on Sep 14th, 2021. Patient details included demographics, IIM subtypes (dermatomyositis (DM), polymyositis (PM), inclusion body myositis (IBM), antisynthetase syndrome (ASSD), necrotizing myositis (NM) and overlap myositis (OM)), clinical symptoms, disease duration and activity, and current treatments. Treatments were categorized in corticosteroids (CS), antimalarials, immunosuppressants (IS), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), biologics, and others. Typical clinical symptoms (dyspnea, dysphagia) were used as surrogate for organ involvement. Factors associated with IS were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for IIM subtype, demographics, world region, disease activity, and prevalent clinical symptoms (>10%).ResultsIn 1418 patients with IIM, median age was 61 years [IQR 49-70], 62.5% were females, median disease duration was 6 years [IQR 3-11], most common subset was DM (32.4%).The most used treatments were IS (49.4%, including Methotrexate 19.6%, Mycophenolate Mofetil 18.2%, Azathioprine 8.8%, Cyclosporine 2.7%, Tacrolimus 2%, Leflunomide 1.6%, Sulfasalazine 1%, and Cyclophosphamide 0.6%), followed by CS (40.8%), antimalarials (13.8%) and IVIG (9.4%). Biologics were used in 4.3% of patients.Treatment patterns differed significantly by IIM subtypes with a higher frequency of IS (77.7%) and CS (63.4%) use in ASSD; antimalarials (28.6%) and biologics (9.8%) use in OM and IVIG use in NM (24.6%) (Table 1). Also, treatment patterns were different in regions of the world (Figure 1), with a higher frequency of CS use in Europe (60.5%) and IS use in South America (77.2%). Antimalarials were most used in Asia (19.4%), while IVIG use was most common in Oceania (16.9%). Dyspnea was associated with higher use of IS (69.9%) and CS (65.8%) (p<0.001), whereas dysphagia was negatively associated with IS (39.7%) and CS (32.7%) likely due to a higher proportion in IBM patients reporting dysphagia.Table 1.Current Treatments for IIM, Stratified by Disease SubtypesDermatomyositisPolymyositisInclusion Body MyositisAnti-synthetase syndromeNecrotizing myositisOverlap syndromeAll IIMp-valueNumber of patients459182348148572241418Immunosuppressants*269 (58.6)107 (58.8)39 (11.2)115 (77.7)40 (70.2)130 (58.0)700 (49.4)<0.001Corticosteroids208 (48.0)81 (46.8)32 (9.7)90 (63.4)32 (59.3)103 (50.0)546 (40.8)<0.001Antimalarials99 (21.6)7 (3.8)0 (0.0)25 (16.9)1 (1.8)64 (28.6)196 (13.8)<0.001Intravenous Immunoglobulins54 (11.8)16 (8.8)19 (5.5)10 (6.8)14 (24.6)20 (8.9)133 (9.4)<0.001Biologics**17 (3.7)7 (3.8)0 (0.0)13 (8.8)2 (3.5)22 (9.8)61 (4.3)<0.001Others***6 (1.3)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)5 (2,2)12 (0.8)0.098*Methotrexate (278), Mycophenolate Mofetil (258), Azathioprine (125), Cyclosporine (38), Tacrolimus (28), Leflunomide (23), Sulfasalazine (14), Cyclophosphamide (9). **Rituximab (44), Abatacept (5), TNF inhibitors (4), Tocilizumab (3), Belimumab (3), Secukinumab (1). ***JAK(10) and PDE4 inhibitors (2)Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed an association of IS with the IIM subtype (least used in IBM (OR 0.07 [95%CI 0.04-0.13] compared to DM), world region (most used in South America (OR 2.35 [1.12-4.91] compared to North America), active and worsening disease activity (OR 3.49 [1.76-6.91] compared to remission), and some clinical features (dyspnea, fatigue, and muscle weakness).ConclusionIIM treatment patterns differ significantly by disease subtypes, world regions and organ involvement, highlighting the need for unified international consensus-driven guidelines.References[1]Parikshit S. et al. Rheumatol Int. 2022 Jan;42(1):23–9.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared
|
|
| 3. |
- Grignaschi, S., et al.
(författare)
-
HIGH FATIGUE SCORES IN PATIENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES : A MULTIGROUP COMPARATIVE STUDY FROM THE COVAD E-SURVEY
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : HighWire Press. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81:Suppl. 1, s. 748-748
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a rare, multisystem, heterogeneous diseases, and contribute to high psychological burden. The patients’ perception of physical health, deteriorating independence and social and environmental relationships may not always be a direct function of disease activity. To face with these aspects, several worldwide specialized organization have recommended the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) both in clinical trials and observational studies to highlight patient’s perception of the disease (1). Unfortunately, data on fatigue scores in IIM is limited.ObjectivesWe compared fatigue VAS scores in patients with IIM, autoimmune diseases (AIDs) and healthy controls (HCs) and triangulated them with PROMIS physical function in a large international cohort made up of answers from the e-survey regarding the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study.MethodsData of 16327 respondents was extracted from the COVAD database on August 31th 2021. VAS fatigue scores were compared between AID, HC and IIM using univariate followed by multivariate analysis after adjusting for baseline differences. We further performed a propensity score matched analysis on 1827 subjects after adjusting for age, gender and ethnicity. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables, and Bonferroni’s correction was applied for the post hoc analyses considering IIMs as a reference group.ResultsWe analyzed answers from 6988 patients, with a mean age of 43.8 years (SD 16.2). The overall percentage of female was 72% and the population ethnicity was mainly composed of White (55.1%), followed by Asian (24.6%), and Hispanic (13.8%). The overall fatigue VAS was 3.6 mm (SD 2.7). IIMs VAS was 4.8 mm (SD 2.6), AIDs 4.5 mm (SD 2.6), and HC 2.8 mm (SD 2.6) (P <0,001). VAS fatigue scores of IIMs were comparable with AIDs (P 0.084), albeit significantly higher than the HCs (P <0,001). Notably, fatigue VAS was lower in IIMs than AIDs in two distinct subsets: inactive disease as defined by the patient’s perception and the “excellent” general health condition group, where IIMs had worse scores (P <0,05). Interestingly, fatigue VAS was comparable in active disease defined by physician assessment, patient perception, based on general functional status, or when defined by steroid dose being prescribed. Notably, after propensity matched analysis of patients adjusting for gender, age and ethnicity (1.827 answers, i.e. 609 subjects per group, P =1) the differences disappeared and IIMs and AIDs had comparable fatigue levels across all levels of disease activity, although the fatigue discrepancies with HCs were substantially confirmed.After application of a multivariate linear regression analysis we found that lower fatigue VAS scores were related to HC (P <0,001), male gender (P <0,001), Asian and Hispanic ethnicities (P <0,001 and 0,003).ConclusionOur study confirms that there is a higher prevalence of fatigue in all the AIDs patients, with comparable VAS scores between IIMs and other AIDs. We can also read our data commenting that females and/or Caucasians patients suffer a higher impact of this manifestation of chronic autoimmune diseases upon their lives. This is why these subjects, to our judgement, should be carefully evaluated during outpatients visits and to whom we should spend some extra time to discuss health related issues and how to improve them.References[1]Regardt, M. et al. OMERACT 2018 Modified Patient-reported Outcome Domain Core Set in the Life Impact Area for Adult Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies. J. Rheumatol.46, 1351–1354 (2019).Figure 1.distribution of Fatigue VAS scores in the three population evaluated. IIM idiopathic inflammatory myositis; AID autoimmune diseases; HC healthy controls; * P < 0,05.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared
|
|
