| 1. |
- Moleon, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Rethinking megafauna
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences. - : The Royal Society. - 0962-8452 .- 1471-2954. ; 287:1922
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Concern for megafauna is increasing among scientists and non-scientists. Many studies have emphasized that megafauna play prominent ecological roles and provide important ecosystem services to humanity. But, what precisely are 'megafauna'? Here, we critically assess the concept of megafauna and propose a goal-oriented framework for megafaunal research. First, we review definitions of megafauna and analyse associated terminology in the scientific literature. Second, we conduct a survey among ecologists and palaeontologists to assess the species traits used to identify and define megafauna. Our review indicates that definitions are highly dependent on the study ecosystem and research question, and primarily rely on ad hoc size-related criteria. Our survey suggests that body size is crucial, but not necessarily sufficient, for addressing the different applications of the term megafauna. Thus, after discussing the pros and cons of existing definitions, we propose an additional approach by defining two function-oriented megafaunal concepts: 'keystone megafauna' and 'functional megafauna', with its variant 'apex megafauna'. Assessing megafauna from a functional perspective could challenge the perception that there may not be a unifying definition of megafauna that can be applied to all eco-evolutionary narratives. In addition, using functional definitions of megafauna could be especially conducive to cross-disciplinary understanding and cooperation, improvement of conservation policy and practice, and strengthening of public perception. As megafaunal research advances, we encourage scientists to unambiguously define how they use the term 'megafauna' and to present the logic underpinning their definition.
|
|
| 2. |
- Acosta-Herrera, M, et al.
(författare)
-
Genome-wide meta-analysis reveals shared new loci in systemic seropositive rheumatic diseases
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 78:3, s. 311-319
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are heterogeneous and complex conditions with overlapping clinical symptoms and elevated familial aggregation, which suggests the existence of a shared genetic component. In order to identify this genetic background in a systematic fashion, we performed the first cross-disease genome-wide meta-analysis in systemic seropositive rheumatic diseases, namely, systemic sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.MethodsWe meta-analysed ~6.5 million single nucleotide polymorphisms in 11 678 cases and 19 704 non-affected controls of European descent populations. The functional roles of the associated variants were interrogated using publicly available databases.ResultsOur analysis revealed five shared genome-wide significant independent loci that had not been previously associated with these diseases: NAB1, KPNA4-ARL14, DGQK, LIMK1 and PRR12. All of these loci are related with immune processes such as interferon and epidermal growth factor signalling, response to methotrexate, cytoskeleton dynamics and coagulation cascade. Remarkably, several of the associated loci are known key players in autoimmunity, which supports the validity of our results. All the associated variants showed significant functional enrichment in DNase hypersensitivity sites, chromatin states and histone marks in relevant immune cells, including shared expression quantitative trait loci. Additionally, our results were significantly enriched in drugs that are being tested for the treatment of the diseases under study.ConclusionsWe have identified shared new risk loci with functional value across diseases and pinpoint new potential candidate loci that could be further investigated. Our results highlight the potential of drug repositioning among related systemic seropositive rheumatic IMIDs.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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
|
|
| 4. |
- 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
|
|
| 5. |
- Gupta, L., et al.
(författare)
-
COVID-19 SEVERITY AND VACCINE BREAKTHROUGH INFECTIONS IN IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES, OTHER SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNE AND INFLAMMATORY DISEASES, AND HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS : RESULTS FROM THE COVID-19 VACCINATION IN AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (COVAD) STUDY.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : HighWire Press. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81:Suppl. 1, s. 334-336
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Significant gaps are present in the evidence of the spectrum and severity of COVID-19 infection in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). IIM patients typically require immunosuppressive therapy, may have multiple disease sequelae, and frequent comorbidities, and thus may be more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection and complications (1). The possibility of attenuated immunogenicity and reduced efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines due to concomitant immunosuppressive medication is a major concern in these patients, and there is little data available on COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections (BI) in IIM (2).ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare disease spectrum and severity and COVID-19 BI in patients with IIM, other systemic autoimmune and inflammatory diseases (SAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs).MethodsWe developed an extensive self-reporting electronic-survey (COVAD survey) featuring 36 questions to collect respondent demographics, SAID details, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccination details, 7-day post vaccination adverse events and patient reported outcome measures using the PROMIS tool. After pilot testing, validation, translation into 18 languages on the online platform surveymonkey.com, and vetting by international experts, the COVAD survey was circulated in early 2021 by a multicenter study group of >110 collaborators in 94 countries. BI was defined as COVID-19 infection occurring more than 2 weeks after receiving 1st or 2nd dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We analyzed data from the baseline survey for descriptive and intergroup comparative statistics based on data distribution and variable type.Results10900 respondents [mean age 42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analyzed. 1,227 (11.2%) had IIM, 4,640 (42.6%) had other SAIDs, and 5,033 (46.2%) were HC. All respondents included in the final analysis had received a single dose of the vaccine and 69% had received 2 primary doses. Pfizer (39.8%) was the most common vaccine received, followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca (13.4%), and Covishield (10.9%). IIM patients were older, had a higher Caucasian representation and higher Pfizer uptake than other SAIDs, and HC. A higher proportion of IIM patients received immunosuppressants than other SAIDs.IIMs were at a lower risk of symptomatic pre-vaccination COVID-19 infection compared to SAIDs [multivariate OR 0.6 (0.4-0.8)] and HCs [multivariate OR 0.39 (0.28-0.54)], yet at a higher risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared to SAIDs [univariate OR 2.3 (1.2-3.5)] and HCs [multivariate OR 2.5 (1.1-5.8)]. BIs were very uncommon in IIM patients, with only 17 (1.4%) reporting BI. IIM patients were at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 prior to vaccination than ≤2 weeks of vaccination [univariate OR 8 (4.1-15)] or BI [univariate OR 4.6 (2.7-8.0)]. BIs were equally severe compared to when they occurred prior to vaccination in IIMs, and were comparable between IIM, SAIDs, and HC (Figure 1), though BI disease duration was shorter in IIMs than SAIDs (7 vs 11 days, p 0.027). 13/17 IIM patients with BI were on immunosuppressants.ConclusionIIM patients experienced COVID-19 infection less frequently prior to vaccination but were at a higher risk of hospitalization and requirement for oxygen therapy compared with patients with HC. Breakthrough COVID-19 infections were rare (1.4%) in vaccinated IIM patients, and were similar to HC and SAIDs, except for shorter disease duration in IIM.References[1]Brito-Zerón P, Sisó-Almirall A, Flores-Chavez A, Retamozo S, Ramos-Casals M. SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2021 Jun;39(3):676–87.[2]Wack S, Patton T, Ferris LK. COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease: Review of available evidence. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Nov;85(5):1274–84.AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the collection of data. The authors thank all respondents for filling the questionnaire. The authors thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren’s India Foundation, EULAR PARE, and various other patient support groups and organizations for their invaluable contribution in the dissemination of this survey among patients which made the data collection possible. The authors also thank all members of the COVAD study group.Disclosure of InterestsLatika Gupta: None declared, Leonardo Santos Hoff: None declared, Naveen R: None declared, Parikshit Sen: None declared, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Minchul Kim: None declared, Ashima Makol: None declared, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Speakers bureau: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Consultant of: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Grant/research support from: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Albert Selva-O’Callaghan: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Consultant of: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Grant/research support from: EN holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly., Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Consultant of: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Arvind Nune: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript, Consultant of: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript, Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Consultant of: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Grant/research support from: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Hector Chinoy Speakers bureau: HC has been a speaker for UCB, Biogen., Consultant of: HC has received consulting fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, Astra Zeneca, Grant/research support from: HC has received grant support from Eli Lilly and UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, and Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32
|
|
| 6. |
- Kehoe, Laura, et al.
(författare)
-
Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 364:6438, s. 341-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Sen, P, et al.
(författare)
-
COVID-19 VACCINATION-RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS AMONG AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE PATIENTS: RESULTS FROM THE COVID-19 VACCINATION IN AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (COVAD) STUDY
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 966-967
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective in the healthy population at large. However, significant gaps remain in the evidence of their safety in patients with systemic autoimmune and inflammatory disorders (SAIDs). Patients and rheumatologists have expressed concerns regarding vaccination triggered allergic reactions, thrombogenic events, and other adverse events (ADEs) contributing to vaccine hesitancy (1)ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess and compare short term COVID-19 vaccination associated ADEs in patients with SAIDs and healthy controls (HC) seven days post-vaccination, as well as between patients with SAIDs receiving different vaccines.MethodsWe developed an comprehensive, patient self-reporting electronic-survey to collect respondent demographics, SAID details, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccination details, 7-day post vaccination adverse events and patient reported outcome measures using the PROMIS tool. After pilot testing, validation, translation into 18 languages on the online platform surveymonkey.com, and vetting by international experts, the survey was circulated in early 2021 by a multicenter study group of >110 collaborators in 94 countries. ADEs were categorized as injection site pain, minor ADEs, major ADEs, and hospitalizations. We analyzed data from the baseline survey for descriptive and intergroup comparative statistics based on data distribution and variable type (data as median, IQR).Results10900 respondents [42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analyzed. 5,867 patients (54%) with SAIDs were compared with 5033 HCs. All respondents included in the final analysis had received a single dose of the vaccine and 69% had received 2 primary doses. Pfizer (39.8%) was the most common vaccine received, followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca (13.4%), and Covishield (10.9%). Baseline demographics differed by an older SAID population (mean age 42 vs. 33 years) and a greater female predominance (M:F= 1:4.7 vs. 1:1.8) compared to HCs.79% had minor and only 3% had major vaccine ADEs requiring urgent medical attention overall. In adjusted analysis, among minor ADEs, abdominal pain [multivariate OR 1.6 (1.14-2.3)], dizziness [multivariate OR 1.3 (1.2-1.5)], and headache [multivariate OR 1.67 (1.3-2.2)], were more frequent in SAIDs than HCs. Overall major ADEs [multivariate OR 1.9 (1.6-2.2)], and throat closure [multivariate OR 5.7 (2.9-11.3)] were more frequent in SAIDs though absolute risk was small (0-4%) and rates of hospitalization were similarly small in both groups, with a small absolute risk (0-4%). Specific minor ADEs frequencies were different among different vaccine types, however, major ADEs and hospitalizations overall were rare (0-4%) and comparable across vaccine types in patients with SAIDs (Figure 1).Figure 1.A. Post Vaccination ADEs in SAIDs compared to HCs. B. Proportions of post COVID-19 vaccination ADEs in SAIDs by vaccine type.ConclusionVaccination against COVID-19 is relatively safe and tolerable in patients with SAIDs. Certain minor vaccine ADEs are more frequent in SAIDs than HCs in this study, though are not severe and do not require urgent medical attention. SAIDs were at a higher risk of major ADEs than HCs, though absolute risk was small, and did not lead to increased hospitalizations. There are small differences in minor ADEs between vaccine types in patients with SAIDs.References[1]Boekel L, Kummer LY, van Dam KPJ, Hooijberg F, van Kempen Z, Vogelzang EH, et al. Adverse events after first COVID-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021 Aug;3(8):e542–5.AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the collection of data. The authors thank all respondents for filling the questionnaire. The authors thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren’s India Foundation, EULAR PARE, and various other patient support groups and organizations for their invaluable contribution in the dissemination of this survey among patients which made the data collection possible. The authors also thank all members of the COVAD study group.Disclosure of InterestsParikshit Sen: None declared, Naveen R: None declared, Arvind Nune: None declared, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Minchul Kim: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited., Marcin Milchert: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Speakers bureau: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Consultant of: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Grant/research support from: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Albert Selva-O’Callaghan: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Consultant of: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Grant/research support from: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, and holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly., Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Consultant of: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Grant/research support from: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra: None declared, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript., Consultant of: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript., Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript., Johannes Knitza: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Consultant of: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Grant/research support from: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Hector Chinoy Speakers bureau: HC has served as a speaker for UCB, Biogen., Consultant of: HC has received consulting fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, Astra Zeneca, Grant/research support from: HC has received grant support from Eli Lilly and UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from for the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Kyverna, Janssen, Roivant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Argenx, Q32, Alexion, EMD S
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Yoshida, A, et al.
(författare)
-
IMPAIRED PROMIS PHYSICAL FUNCTION IN IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHY PATIENTS: RESULTS FROM THE MULTICENTER COVAD PATIENT REPORTED E-SURVEY
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 720-722
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Evaluation of physical function is fundamental in the management of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs). Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a National Institute of Health initiative established in 2004 to develop patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with improved validity and efficacy. PROMIS Physical Function (PF) short forms have been validated for use in IIMs [1].ObjectivesTo investigate the physical function status of IIM patients compared to those with non-IIM autoimmune diseases (AIDs) and healthy controls (HCs) utilizing PROMIS PF data obtained in the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study, a large-scale, international self-reported e-survey assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in AID patients [2].MethodsThe survey data regarding demographics, IIM and AID diagnosis, disease activity, and PROMIS PF short form-10a scores were extracted from the COVAD study database. The disease activity (active vs inactive) of each patient was assessed in 3 different ways: (1) physician’s assessment (active if there was an increased immunosuppression), (2) patient’s assessment (active vs inactive as per patient), and (3) current steroid use. These 3 definitions of disease activity were applied independently to each patient. PROMIS PF-10a scores were compared between each disease category (IIMs vs non-IIM AIDs vs HCs), stratified by disease activity based on the 3 definitions stated above, employing negative binominal regression model. Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, and ethnicity was performed clustering countries, and the predicted PROMIS PF-10a score was calculated based on the regression result. Factors affecting PROMIS PF-10a scores other than disease activity were identified by another multivariable regression analysis in the patients with inactive disease (IIMs or non-IIM AIDs).Results1057 IIM patients, 3635 non-IIM AID patients, and 3981 HCs responded to the COVAD survey until August 2021. The median age of the respondents was 43 [IQR 30-56] years old, and 74.8% were female. Among IIM patients, dermatomyositis was the most prevalent diagnosis (34.8%), followed by inclusion body myositis (IBM) (23.6%), polymyositis (PM) (16.2%), anti-synthetase syndrome (11.8%), overlap myositis (7.9%), and immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) (4.6%). The predicted mean of PROMIS PF-10a scores was significantly lower in IIMs compared to non-IIM AIDs or HCs (36.3 [95% (CI) 35.5-37.1] vs 41.3 [95% CI 40.2-42.5] vs 46.2 [95% CI 45.8-46.6], P < 0.001), irrespective of disease activity or the definitions of disease activity used (physician’s assessment, patient’s assessment, or steroid use) (Figure 1). The largest difference between active IIMs and non-IIM AIDs was observed when the disease activity was defined by patient’s assessment (35.0 [95% CI 34.1-35.9] vs 40.1 [95% CI 38.7-41.5]). Considering the subgroups of IIMs, the scores were significantly lower in IBM in comparison with non-IBM IIMs (P < 0.001). The independent factors associated with low PROMIS PF-10a scores in the patients with inactive disease were older age, female gender, and the disease category being IBM, PM, or IMNM.ConclusionPhysical function is significantly impaired in IIMs compared to non-IIM AIDs or HCs, even in patients with inactive disease. The elderly, women, and IBM groups are the worst affected, suggesting that developing targeted strategies to minimize functional disability in certain groups may improve patient reported physical function and disease outcomes.References[1]Saygin D, Oddis CV, Dzanko S, et al. Utility of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) physical function form in inflammatory myopathy. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021; 51: 539-46.[2]Sen P, Gupta L, Lilleker JB, et al. COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD) survey protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022; 42: 23-9.AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all respondents for filling the questionnaire. The authors thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren’s India Foundation, EULAR PARE, and various other patient support groups and organizations for their invaluable contribution in the dissemination of this survey among patients which made the data collection possible. The authors also thank all members of the COVAD study group.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared
|
|
