Search

Background/objectives: The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) depends on the underlying disease, immunosuppression degree and the vaccine regimens. We evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccine schedules., Methods: The SAFER study: "Safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Disease", is a Brazilian multicentric prospective observational phase IV study in the real-life. Data were analyzed after 2 or 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccines: adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Astrazeneca), mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech) or inactivated SARS-COV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac, Sinovac Biotech). IgG antibody against SARS-CoV-2 spike (IgG-S) receptor-binding domain level were quantified at baseline (T1) and 28 days after the first (T2), 2nd (T3) and 3rd (T4) doses by chemiluminescence (SARS-CoV-2-IgG-II Quant-assay, Abbott-Laboratories)., Results: 721 patients with IMID were included in the analysis. The median titers of IgG-S (BAU/mL) increased progressively over the times: at baseline was 6.26 (5.41-7.24), T2: 73.01 (61.53-86.62), T3: 200.0 (174.36-229.41) and T4: 904.92 (800.49-1022.97). The multivariate linear regression showed that greater IgG-S titers were associated with pre-exposure to COVID-19 ( p < 0.001) and BNT162b2 booster vaccine ( p < 0.001). Rituximab and immunosuppressant drugs were independent factors for low titers ( p = 0.002, p < 0.001, respectively). No serious adverse event was reported., Conclusions: All platforms were safe and induced an increase in IgG-S antibodies. COVID-19 pre-exposure and BNT162b2 booster regimens were predictors of higher humoral immune responses, which is relevant in immunosuppressed populations. Immunosuppressants (mainly rituximab) predicted the lowest antibodies.

Background: Patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs) have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination to mitigate the infection severity risks. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, especially those under immunosuppression or with associated comorbidities. However, few studies have assessed the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA., Objective: To evaluate the safety of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with RA., Methods: This data are from the study "Safety and Efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Diseases," a Brazilian multicentric prospective phase IV study to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine in IMRDs in Brazil. Adverse events (AEs) in patients with RA of all centers were assessed after two doses of ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) or CoronaVac (Sinovac/Butantan). Stratification of postvaccination AEs was performed using a diary, filled out daily and returned at the end of 28 days for each dose., Results: A total of 188 patients with RA were include, 90% female. CoronaVac was used in 109 patients and ChAdOx1 in 79. Only mild AEs were observed, mainly after the first dose. The most common AEs after the first dose were pain at the injection (46,7%), headache (39,4%), arthralgia (39,4%), myalgia (30,5%) and fatigue (26,6%), and ChAdOx1 had a higher frequency of pain at the injection (66% vs 32 %, p < 0.001) arthralgia (62% vs 22%, p < 0.001) and myalgia (45% vs 20%, p < 0.001) compared to CoronaVac. The more common AEs after the second dose were pain at the injection (37%), arthralgia (31%), myalgia (23%), headache (21%) and fatigue (18%). Arthralgia (41,4% vs 25%, p = 0.02) and pain at injection (51,4% vs 27%, p = 0.001) were more common with ChAdOx1. No serious AEs were related. With Regard to RA activity level, no significant difference was observed between the three time periods for both COVID-19 vaccines., Conclusion: In the comparison between the two immunizers in patients with RA, local reactions and musculoskeletal symptoms were more frequent with ChAdOx1 than with CoronaVac, especially after the first dose. In summary, the AE occurred mainly after the first dose, and were mild, like previous data from others immunizing agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Vaccination did not worsen the degree of disease activity., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare chronic autoimmune disease with heterogeneous manifestations. In the last decade, several clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate new treatment options for SSc. The purpose of this work is to update the recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology in light of the new evidence available for the pharmacological management of SSc., Methods: A systematic review including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for predefined questions that were elaborated according to the Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) strategy was conducted. The rating of the available evidence was performed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. To become a recommendation, at least 75% agreement of the voting panel was needed., Results: Six recommendations were elaborated regarding the pharmacological treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon, the treatment (healing) and prevention of digital ulcers, skin involvement, interstitial lung disease (ILD) and gastrointestinal involvement in SSc patients based on results available from RCTs. New drugs, such as rituximab, were included as therapeutic options for skin involvement, and rituximab, tocilizumab and nintedanib were included as therapeutic options for ILD. Recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of scleroderma renal crisis and musculoskeletal involvement were elaborated based on the expert opinion of the voting panel, as no placebo-controlled RCTs were found., Conclusion: These guidelines updated and incorporated new treatment options for the management of SSc based on evidence from the literature and expert opinion regarding SSc, providing support for decision-making in clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background/ Purpose: Sarcopenia has been increasingly studied in systemic sclerosis (SSc), which is one of the most lethal autoimmune diseases, mainly due to lung involvement. Our objective was to study the associations of myopenia and/or myosteatosis with clinical features of SSc and subsequent adverse outcomes., Methods: This is a retrospective study with cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, in which patients with SSc were consecutively included in the outpatient clinic of a tertiary university hospital between 2012 and 2021. Clinical and laboratory parameters of patients with SSc were collected from their medical records. Skeletal muscle mass was assessed on chest computed tomography (CT) at the level of the first lumbar vertebra (L1) by skeletal muscle area (SMA), skeletal muscle index ([SMI] SMA/height 2 ), and skeletal muscle radiation attenuation (SMRA). Cut-off values for myopenia in women and men were SMA <70.1 cm² and <110.4 cm², and SMI <25.9 cm²/m² and <34.6 cm²/m², respectively; values for myosteatosis in women and men were SMRA <29.8 HU and <36.3 HU, respectively. In a subgroup of 31 patients followed-up between 2017 and 2019, the diagnostic properties of SMA, SMI, and SMRA by CT were compared with the appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Low muscle quantity was defined according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2: ASMI <5.5 kg/m 2 in women and <7.0 kg/m 2 in men. Afterwards, a better tomographic index was used for correlating with clinical and laboratory parameters., Results: Myopenia and/or myosteatosis were present in 75.7 % of patients with SSc. The prevalence rates according to each index were SMA 25.2%, SMI 12.1%, and SMRA 69.2%. In 73% of the patients with overweight/obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥25 kg/m²), only SMRA was reduced. Considering ASMI as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for SMA were 60%, 96.2%, 75% and 92.6%, respectively; for SMI, they were 40%, 96.2%, 66.7%, and 89.3%, respectively; for SMRA, these values were 60%, 34.6%, 15%, and 81.8%. Pearson's correlation coefficients were 0.73, 0.74, and 0.10 for SMA, SMI, and SMRA, respectively, and ASMI significantly agreed with SMA (kappa 0.611, p < 0.001) and SMI (kappa 0.431, p = 0.012). After adjustments in a multivariate model, BMI (p < 0.001) and female sex (p < 0.001) remained significantly associated with myopenia by SMA; BMI (p =0.010) remained significantly associated with low muscle mass by ASMI., Conclusion: The SMA index at L1 level on chest CT was demonstrated to be an accurate measure that is useful for detecting myopenia in patients with SSc. BMI and male sex predicted low SMA and BMI was associated with low ASMI on DXA., Statement of Clinical Significance: In recent years, great advances have been made in sarcopenia-related research, resulting in broader knowledge on its definition, causes, diagnosis, and treatment options. Regarding the techniques used for assessing muscle composition, computed tomography (CT) was demonstrated by many studies to be an efficient and easy-to-use method that can be employed by professionals of different specialties, including rheumatologists. This study was able to demonstrate that although the L3 image was not present on CT, the analysis of SMA at the L1 level on chest CT proved to be an accurate and useful measure to detect myopenia in patients with SSc. This study identified some associated factors of myopenia and/or myosteatosis according to each method employed for assessing muscle composition. Reduced BMI and male sex were associated factors of myopenia when using SMA, and reduced BMI was associated with myopenia when employing ASMI by DXA. Finally, we highlight the need not to generalize the term "sarcopenia" in clinical studies assessing imaging parameters of body composition. The use of the terms myopenia and/or myosteatosis would be more adequate, because CT allows the assessment of muscle composition and not strength or physical performance., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a chronic disease characterized by autoimmunity, vasculopathy and fibrosis of several organs, such as skin, lungs, and heart. During the disease course, patients with SSc are prone to accumulating multiple organ damage and increasing their vulnerability to adverse outcomes. This increased vulnerability to adverse outcomes when exposed to a stressor among people of the same age is known as frailty. One of the most used definitions of frailty is the physical frailty phenotype (PFP), including 5 components: unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, muscle weakness, slow walking speed, and low physical activity. There is scarce data about frailty in patients with SSc., Objectives: To determine the prevalence and clinical profile of PFP in a sample of patients with SSc. To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness and Loss of weight (FRAIL) scale, Edmonton frailty scale (EFS) and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) using the PFP as the reference standard., Methods: Cross-sectional study including 94 patients with SSc according to the 2013 ACR-EULAR classification criteria or the criteria suggested by Le Roy and Medsger for early disease. Gastrointestinal symptoms were assessed by the UCLA GIT 2.0 questionnaire, malnutrition was defined according to European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) recommendations, and physical performance was assessed by SPPB. PFP assessment was according to the original definition, except for physical activity domain, assessed with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). FRAIL scale and EFS were also applied to the same individuals. For diagnostic assessment of FRAIL, EFS and SPPB, we estimated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), considering PFP as the reference standard and dichotomizing the results in frail vs. non-frail., Results: According to PFP, 33 patients (35.1%) were considered frail and 53 patients (56.4%) pre-frail. According to FRAIL scale, 27 patients (28.7%) were considered frail and 53 patients (56.4%) pre-frail. According to EFS, 28 patients (29.7%) were classified as vulnerable and 15 (15.9%) as frail: mild in 8 (8.5%), moderate in 5 (5.3%) and severe in 2 (2.1%). According to SPPB, 19 patients (20.2%) were considered frail. The AUC against PFP was: 0.829 (95% CI 0.743-0.916) for FRAIL scale, 0.859 (95% CI 0.784-0.934) for EFS and 0.791 (95% CI 0.697-0.885) for SPPB. The PFP was associated with current use of glucocorticoids (p=0.011), UCLA GIT 2.0 score (p=0.001), HAQ (p<0.0001), patient and physician-assigned VAS (p<0.0001, both), malnutrition (p=0.007), hospitalizations in the past year (p=0.008) and dependence on BADL and IADL (p=0.027 and p<0.0001, respectively). The PFP was not associated with gender (p=0.679), age (p=0.303), disease duration (p=0.504), Rodnan skin score (p=0.918), diffuse subtype (p=0.116), polypharmacy (p=845) and sarcopenia (p=0.328)., Conclusion: Frailty is prevalent in patients with long-standing SSc and is associated with disability, limitations in daily activities and hospitalizations in the past year. Also, malnutrition and more severe gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in frail patients. Both FRAIL scale and EFS showed excellent diagnostic accuracy against PFP as the reference standard, however the FRAIL scale presents a higher sensitivity and seems to be more feasible and practical than EFS and SPPB in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interest none., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)