Search

BackgroundTocilizumab (TCZ) is the only biologic drug approved in giant cell arteritis (GCA), based in two clinical trials (CT) (1,2). CT included selected patients who may differ from those of clinical practice (CP). A high proportion of GCA patients treated with TCZ in CT had a newly diagnosed GCA, whereas in CP, most of them are refractory/recurrent GCA (3,4). Although in CT the efficacy of TCZ seems to be similar in patients with newly diagnosed GCA and in patients with refractory/recurrent GCA, in CP it is not documented.ObjectivesTo compare in CP, the effectiveness and safety of TCZ in newly diagnosed vs refractory/recurrent GCA.MethodsMulticentre observational study on 471 GCA patients treated with TCZ. GCA was diagnosed by: a) ACR criteria, and/or b) temporal artery biopsy, and/or c) imaging techniques. A comparative study between patients with newly diagnosed GCA (6 weeks) (according to GiACTA study definitions) (2). Sustained remission was based on EULAR definitions (5).ResultsThe 471 GCA patients were divided into 2 subgroups: a) newly diagnosed GCA (n=91) and b) refractory/recurrent GCA (n=380) (Table 1).Table 1.Main features of patients with newly diagnosed GCA and refractory/recurrent GCA treated with tocilizumab.Newly diagnosed GCA (n=91)Refractory/recurrent GCA (n=380)pBaseline characteristics at TCZ onset Age(years), mean±SD74.3±8.573.3±9.10.35 Sex, female/male (% female)60/31 (66)282/98 (74)0.11 Time from GCA diagnosis to TCZ onset (months), median [IQR]1 [0.5-1]10 [4-24]0.0001 ESR, mm 1st hour, median [IQR]46 [17.5-80.5]27 [10-50]0.02 CRP, mg/dL, median [IQR]2.1 [0.7-8.5]1.3 [0.4-2.8]0.13 Haemoglobin, g/dL, mean±SD12.3±1.512.7±1.50.03 Prednisone dose, mg/day, median [IQR]40 [21.2-50]15 [10-30]Effectiveness and Safety after TCZ onsetFollow-up, (months), median [IQR]15 [6-27.5]22 [11-37]0.004Relevant adverse events, n (%)23 (25)102 (27)0.54Relevant adverse events per 100 patients-year2015NSSerious infections, n (%)13 (14)53 (14)0.49Serious infections per 100 patients-year11.28NSMACES, n (%)0 (0)1 (0.3)-MACES per 100 patients-year00.2-Malignancies n (%)2 (2)3 (0.8)0.99Malignancies per 100 patients-year1.60.5NSAbbreviations: CRP: C-reactive protein;ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate;GCA: giant cell arteritis; IQR: interquartile range; IV: intravenous; MACEs: major adverse cardiovascular events; NS: non significant; SC: subcutaneous; SD: standard deviationNo significant differences were observed between both groups in sustained remission, although a greater tendency towards sustained remission is observed in newly diagnosed than in refractory/recurrent GCA patients (Figure 1). The decrease in glucocorticoids dose was faster in the first three months in the newly diagnosed GCA group, but thereafter, was similar in both groups, as well as the appearance of relevant adverse events and serious infections.Figure 1.A) Sustained remission, and B) median prednisone dose required in patients with newly diagnosed GCA and in patients with refractory/recurrent GCA treated with tocilizumab.ConclusionThe effectiveness and safety of TCZ seems to be similar in patients with newly diagnosed GCA and in patients with refractory/recurrent GCA.References[1]Villiger PM, et al. Lancet. 2016; 387:1921-1927. PMID: 26952547[2]Stone JH, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377:317-328. PMID: 28745999[3]Calderón-Goercke M, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019; 49: 126-135. PMID: 30655091[4]Calderón-Goercke M, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2020; 124: S112-119. PMID: 32441643[5]Hellmich B, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020; 79: 19-30. PMID: 31270110AcknowledgementsTocilizumab in Giant Cell Arteritis Spanish Collaborative Group: Juan C. González Nieto (H. Gregorio Marañón), Juan R. de Dios (H.U. Araba), Esther Fernández (H. Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca), Isabel de la Morena (H. Clínico Universitario de Valencia), Patricia Moya (H. Sant Pau), Roser Solans i Laqué (H. Valle de Hebrón), Eva Pérez Pampín (H.U. de Santiago), José L. Andréu (H.U. Puerta de Hierro), Marcelino Revenga (H. Ramón y Cajal), Juan P. Baldivieso Achá (H. U. de La Princesa), Eztizen Labrador (H. San Pedro), Andrea García-Valle (Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Palencia), Adela Gallego (Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Badajoz), Carlota Iñíguez (H.U. Lucus Augusti), Cristina Hidalgo (Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca), Noemí Garrido-Puñal (H. Virgen del Rocío), Ruth López-González (Complejo Hospitalario de Zamora), José A. Román-Ivorra (H.U. y Politécnico La Fe), Sara Manrique (H. Regional de Málaga), Paz Collado (H.U. Severo Ochoa), Enrique Raya (H. San Cecilio), Valvanera Pinillos (H. San Pedro), Francisco Navarro (H. General Universitario de Elche), Alejandro Olivé-Marqués (H. Trías i Pujol), Francisco J. Toyos (H.U. Virgen Macarena), María L. Marena Rojas (H. La Mancha Centro), Antoni Juan Más (H.U. Son Llàtzer), Beatriz Arca (H.U. San Agustín), Carmen Ordás-Calvo (H. Cabueñes), María D. Boquet (H. Arnau de Vilanova), Noelia Álvarez-Rivas (H.U. Lucus Augusti), María L. Velloso-Feijoo (H.U. de Valme), Cristina Campos (H. General Universitario de Valencia), Íñigo Rúa-Figueroa (H. Doctor Negrín), Antonio García (H. Virgen de las Nieves), Carlos Vázquez (H. Miguel Servet), Pau Lluch (H. Mateu Orfila), Carmen Torres (Complejo Asistencial de Ávila), Cristina Luna (H.U. Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria), Elena Becerra (H.U. de Torrevieja), Nagore Fernández-Llanio (H. Arnáu de Vilanova), Arantxa Conesa (H.U. de Castellón), Eva Salgado (Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense).Disclosure of InterestsJulio Sanchez-Martin: None declared, Javier Loricera: None declared, Clara Moriano: None declared, Santos Castañeda: None declared, J. Narváez: None declared, Vicente Aldasoro: None declared, Olga Maiz: None declared, Rafael Melero: None declared, Ignacio Villa-Blanco: None declared, Paloma Vela-Casasempere: None declared, Susana Romero-Yuste: None declared, Jose Luis Callejas-Rubio: None declared, Eugenio de Miguel: None declared, E. Galíndez-Agirregoikoa: None declared, Francisca Sivera: None declared, Carlos Fernández-López: None declared, Carles Galisteo: None declared, Iván Ferraz-Amaro: None declared, Lara Sanchez-Bilbao: None declared, Monica Calderón-Goercke: None declared, Jose Luis Hernández Hernández: None declared, Miguel A González-Gay Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, Celgene and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD, Jansen and Roche, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD and Roche

BackgroundLarge vessel involvement in Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA), especially the aorta and/or its main branches, is frequent. Tocilizumab (TCZ) has shown efficacy and safety in GCA and other large-vessel vasculitis (1-4).ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of TCZ in GCA patients with involvement of the aorta and/or its main branches.MethodsMulticenter observational study of 196 patients with GCA and involvement of the aorta and/or its major branches treated with TCZ. GCA was diagnosed by: a) ACR criteria, and/or b) temporal artery biopsy, and/or c) imaging techniques. The presence of aortitis was performed by imaging techniques, mainly PET, and A-MRI.Maintained remission was considered according to EULAR definitions (5).ResultsThe main features of the 196 patients are showed in Table 1. Polymyalgia rheumatica, constitutional syndrome and headache were the most frequent clinical manifestations at TCZ onset. At 6 months after starting TCZ, 20% of the patients reached a sustained remission, that was progressively increasing. (Figure 1). A corticosteroid-sparing effect was observed from month 1 of TCZ onset (Figure 1). Relevant adverse events were observed in 12 per 100 patients-year, documenting serious infections in 4.8 per 100 patients-year (Table 1).Table 1.Main features of 196 GCA patients with involvement of the aorta and/or its main branches treated with TCZ.GCA (n=196)Features at TCZ onsetAge(years), mean±SD71.3±9.5Sex, female/male (% female)148/48 (75)Time from GCA diagnosis to TCZ onset (months), median [IQR]7 [2-18.25]Systemic manifestations, n (%)Fever, n (%)24 (12)Constitutional syndrome, n (%)87 (44)PmR, n (%)131 (67)Ischaemic manifestations, n (%)Visual involvement, n (%)16 (8)Headache, n (%)74 (38)Jaw claudication, n (%)27 (14)Laboratory dataESR, mm 1st hour, median [IQR]32 [14-54]CRP, mg/dL, median [IQR]1.5 [0.6-3.2]Prednisone dose, mg/day, median [IQR]15 [10-30]Safety after TCZ onsetRelevant adverse events, per 100 patients-year12Serious infections, per 100 patients-year4.8Figure 1.A) Sustained remission, and B) median prednisone dose required in GCA patients with aortitis treated with tocilizumabConclusionTCZ seems to be effective and relatively safe in GCA patients with involvement of the aorta and/or its main branches.References[1]Calderón-Goercke M, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019; 49: 126-135. PMID: 30655091[2]Loricera J, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016; 34: S44-53. PMID: 27050507[3]Loricera J, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015; 33: S19-31. PMID: 25437450[4]Prieto-Peña D, et al. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021; 13: 1759720X211020917. PMID: 34211589[5]Hellmich B, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020; 79: 19-30. PMID: 31270110Disclosure of InterestsLara Sanchez-Bilbao: None declared, Javier Loricera Speakers bureau: from Roche, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Celgene, and Grünenthal., Rafael Melero: None declared, Santos Castañeda Speakers bureau: UAM-Roche, EPID- Future chair, Department of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain., Clara Moriano: None declared, Iván Ferraz-Amaro: None declared, J. Narváez: None declared, Vicente Aldasoro: None declared, Olga Maiz: None declared, Ignacio Villa-Blanco: None declared, Paloma Vela-Casasempere: None declared, Susana Romero-Yuste: None declared, Jose Luis Callejas-Rubio: None declared, Eugenio de Miguel: None declared, E. Galíndez-Agirregoikoa: None declared, Francisca Sivera: None declared, Carlos Fernández-López: None declared, Carles Galisteo: None declared, Julio Sanchez-Martin: None declared, Monica Calderón-Goercke: None declared, J. Luis Hernández: None declared, Miguel A González-Gay Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, Celgene, and MSD., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Jansen, and Roche,, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Lilly, Janssen, and MSD., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD, and Roche

BackgroundTocilizumab (TCZ) has shown to be effective for large vessel vasculitis including giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TAK) (1-5). However, LVV-GCA and TAK show different demographic and clinical features that may influence on TCZ therapeutic response.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of TCZ in patients with LVV-GCA and patients with TAK.MethodsObservational multicenter study of patients with LVV-GCA and TAK who received TCZ. Outcome variables were: a) proportion of patients who achieved complete clinical improvement along with normalization of laboratory markers (CRP ≤0.5mg/dL and/or ESR ≤ 20 mm/1st hour) at 12 months b) complete improvement in imaging techniques. A comparative study between patients with LVV-GCA and TAK was performed.ResultsWe evaluated 70 LVV-GCA and 57 TAK patients who received TCZ. Main clinical and demographic characteristic are described in Table 1. Patients with TAK were younger, had longer disease duration, had received more commonly previous biologic therapy and were receiving higher doses of prednisone at baseline. TCZ intravenous administration was more common in TAK patients (80.7% vs 48.6%; pTable 1.LVV-GCA (n=70)TAK (n=57)pGeneral featuresAge (years), mean ± SD67.2 ± 10.540.5 ± 16.3< 0.01Sex (female), n (%)51 (72.9)49 (86)0.07Disease evolution before TCZ onset (months), median [IQR]5 [2-15]12 [3-37]Baseline laboratory parametersESR (mm/1st hour), median [IQR]32 [12.5-54.7]31 [10-52]0.82CRP (mg/dL), median [IQR]1.4 [0.5-2.4]1.4 [0.5-3.5]0.41Baseline prednisone dose (mg/day), median [IQR]15 [10-20]30 [15-50]< 0.01Previous therapyConventional DMARDs, n(%)45 (64.3)44(77.2)0.51Biologic therapy, n (%)0(0)12 (21.1)TCZ therapyIntravenous, n (%)34 (48.6)46 (80.7)< 0.01Combined with MTX, n(%)24 (34.3)24 (42.1)0.37Follow-up time after TCZ onset, median [IQR]20 [10-36]18 [7-41]0.73Complete clinical improvement and ESR/CRP normalization at 12 months, n/N (%)35/47 (74.4)30/39 (76.9)0.79Complete improvement in imaging techniques, n/N(%)7/37 (18.9)8/38 (21.1)0.85CRP: C-reactive protein; DMARDs: Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; GCA: giant cell arteritis; IQR: interquartile range; LVV: large vessel; MTX: methotrexate; n: Number of patients; N: total number of patients: TCZ: tocilizumab; TAK:takayasuFigure 1.ConclusionThe effectiveness of TCZ was similar in patients with LVV-GCA and TAK, despite a more refractory disease in TAK patients. A discordance between clinical and imaging activity improvement was observed in both LVV-GCA and TAK, as reported in previous studies (3).References[1]Calderón-Goercke M, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2019; 49:126-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2019.01.003[2]Prieto-Peña D et al. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021;13:175. PMID: 34211589.[3]Prieto Peña D et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2021;39 Suppl 129:69-75. PMID: 33253103.[4]González-Gay MA, et al. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2019;19:65-72. doi: 10.1080/14712598.2019.1556256.[5]Prieto-Peña D, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019;48(4):720-727. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2018.05.007Disclosure of InterestsNone declared

BackgroundLarge-vessel vasculitis are characterized by the wall inflammation of the involved vessels, which can be detected by imaging tools (1-3). Ultrasound (US) is one of the most commonly used tools for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA), especially in patients with a cranial phenotype. Tocilizumab (TCZ) has shown efficacy in large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) including GCA (4,5). However, the improvement objectified by imaging techniques such as US after TCZ therapy is poorly documented.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of TCZ improving the wall vessel inflammation by US.MethodsObservational, multicenter study of 26 GCA patients treated with TCZ. GCA was diagnosed according to: a) ACR criteria, and/or b) biopsy of temporal artery, and/or c) presence of signs of vessel wall inflammation by US, defined by the presence of halo sign. In all the cases a baseline US and in the follow-up was mandatory.Patients were divided into two subgroups: a) with, and b) without signs of improvement (partial or total) in the follow-up US.ResultsWe studied 26 patients (19 women/7 men; mean age, 76.3±9.7 years). Main clinical features of GCA with and without US improvement are shown in Table 1. We found no significant differences in any of the variables studied between the two groups.Table 1.Main features of 27 GCA patients treated with tocilizumab followed by Ultrasound (US).With US improvement (n=21)Without US improvement (n=5)pBaseline characteristics at TCZ onsetGeneral characteristicsAge(years), mean±SD77.3±8.972.2±12.90.270Sex, female/male (% female)17/4 (80,95)2/3 (40)0.101Time from GCA diagnosis to TCZ onset (months), median [IQR]6 [3-9]3 [1-6]0.452Systemic manifestations, n (%)Fever, n (%)1/21 (4.76)1/5 (20)0.354Constitutional syndrome, n (%)10/21 (47.62)2/5 (40)0.999PmR, n (%)11/21 (52.38)1/5 (20)0.330Ischaemic manifestations, n (%)Visual involvement, n (%)1/21 (4.76)1/5 (20)0.354Headache, n (%)15/21 (71.43)5/5 (100)0.298Jaw claudication, n (%)4/15 (26.67)¼ (25)0.999Laboratory dataESR, mm 1st hour, median [IQR]33 [22-49]55 [54-80]0.216CRP, mg/dL, median [IQR]1.5 [0.7-6.7]3.8 [1-4.2]0.948Prednisone dose, mg/day, median [IQR]13.7 [10-30]30 [12.5-30]0.505Time from TCZ onset and follow-up US (months)3.9±3.63.1±2.10.456After TCZ onset, 21 of 26 patients (80.7%) showed US signs of improvement (12 complete, 9 partial). In 4 out of 5 patients in whom there was no improvement in US findings, clinical improvement was observed at first month after starting TCZ.ConclusionTCZ seems to be effective controlling GCA including vascular involvement detected by US. This improvement can be seen by follow-up US, especially when performed at least 3 months after TCZ onset.References[1]Loricera J, et al. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2015; 34: 372-7. PMID: 26272121[2]Loricera J, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015; 33: S19-31. PMID: 25437450[3]Prieto-Peña D, et al. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021; 13: 1759720X211020917. PMID: 34211589[4]Martínez-Rodríguez I, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018; 47: 530-537. PMID: 28967430[5]Prieto-Peña D, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019; 48: 720-727. PMID: 29903537AcknowledgementsTocilizumab in Giant Cell Arteritis Spanish Collaborative Group: Juan C. González Nieto (H. Gregorio Marañón), Juan R. de Dios (H.U. Araba), Esther Fernández (H. Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca), Isabel de la Morena (H. Clínico Universitario de Valencia), Patricia Moya (H. Sant Pau), Roser Solans i Laqué (H. Valle de Hebrón), Eva Pérez Pampín (H.U. de Santiago), José L. Andréu (H.U. Puerta de Hierro), Marcelino Revenga (H. Ramón y Cajal), Juan P. Baldivieso Achá (H. U. de La Princesa), Eztizen Labrador (H. San Pedro), Andrea García-Valle (Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Palencia), Adela Gallego (Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Badajoz), Carlota Iñíguez (H.U. Lucus Augusti), Cristina Hidalgo (Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca), Noemí Garrido-Puñal (H. Virgen del Rocío), Ruth López-González (Complejo Hospitalario de Zamora), José A. Román-Ivorra (H.U. y Politécnico La Fe), Sara Manrique (H. Regional de Málaga), Paz Collado (H.U. Severo Ochoa), Enrique Raya (H. San Cecilio), Valvanera Pinillos (H. San Pedro), Francisco Navarro (H. General Universitario de Elche), Alejandro Olivé-Marqués (H. Trías i Pujol), Francisco J. Toyos (H.U. Virgen Macarena), María L. Marena Rojas (H. La Mancha Centro), Antoni Juan Más (H.U. Son Llàtzer), Beatriz Arca (H.U. San Agustín), Carmen Ordás-Calvo (H. Cabueñes), María D. Boquet (H. Arnau de Vilanova), Noelia Álvarez-Rivas (H.U. Lucus Augusti), María L. Velloso-Feijoo (H.U. de Valme), Cristina Campos (H. General Universitario de Valencia), Íñigo Rúa-Figueroa (H. Doctor Negrín), Antonio García (H. Virgen de las Nieves), Carlos Vázquez (H. Miguel Servet), Pau Lluch (H. Mateu Orfila), Carmen Torres (Complejo Asistencial de Ávila), Cristina Luna (H.U. Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria), Elena Becerra (H.U. de Torrevieja), Nagore Fernández-Llanio (H. Arnáu de Vilanova), Arantxa Conesa (H.U. de Castellón), Eva Salgado (Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense).Disclosure of InterestsJulio Sanchez-Martin: None declared, Javier Loricera: None declared, Lara Sanchez-Bilbao: None declared, Eugenio de Miguel: None declared, Rafael Melero: None declared, E. Galíndez-Agirregoikoa: None declared, J. Narváez: None declared, Carles Galisteo: None declared, Juan Carlos Nieto González: None declared, Patricia Moya: None declared, Eztizen Labrador-Sánchez: None declared, Miguel A González-Gay Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, Celgene and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD, Jansen and Roche, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD and Roche

BackgroundPositron emission tomography (PET) is one of the tools available for the diagnosis of extracranial large-vessel vasculitis (1-5). Tocilizumab (TCZ) has shown efficacy in large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) including GCA. However, the improvement objectified by imaging techniques after TCZ therapy in extracranial GCA patients is controversial.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of TCZ improving the wall vessel inflammation by PET in GCA patients with large-vessel involvement.MethodsObservational, multicenter study of 101 GCA patients treated with TCZ. GCA was diagnosed according to: a) ACR criteria, and/or b) biopsy of temporal artery, and/or c) presence of signs of vessel wall inflammation by PET, defined by the presence of vascular wall uptake of Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Patients were divided into two subgroups: a) with, and b) without signs of improvement (partial or total) in the follow-up PET.ResultsWe studied 101 patients (74 women/27 men; mean age 69.7±9.3 years). Main clinical features of GCA with and without PET improvement are shown in Table 1. The group of patients which experienced PET improvement was older and was receiving higher doses of corticosteroids at TCZ onset.Table 1.Main features of 101 GCA patients treated with tocilizumab and with presence of signs of vessel wall inflammation by PET.With PET improvement (n=88)Without PET improvement (n=13)pBaseline characteristics at TCZ onsetGeneral characteristicsAge(years), mean±SD70.6±9.163.8±9.20.014Sex, female/male (% female)67/21(76)7/6 (54)0.103Time from GCA diagnosis to TCZ onset (months), median [IQR]11 [4-24.2]4 [2-6]0.102Systemic manifestations, n (%)Fever, n (%)5 (6)2 (15)0.225Constitutional syndrome, n (%)36 (41)4 (31)0.466PmR, n (%)53 (60)9 (10)0.761Ischaemic manifestations, n (%)Visual involvement, n (%)2 (2)1 (1)0.342Headache, n (%)30 (34)3 (23)0.538Jaw claudication, n (%)8 (9)0 (0)0.592Laboratory dataESR, mm 1st hour, median [IQR]38.0 ± 26.213.54 ± 9.90.001CRP, mg/dL, median [IQR]1.5 [0.7-2.4]1 [0.5-1.7]0.179Prednisone dose, mg/day, median [IQR]40.3 ± 19.421.9 ± 12.70.001Time from TCZ onset and follow-up PET (months)13.1±8.010.1±5.30.446ConclusionTCZ seems to be effective controlling GCA including vascular involvement detected by PET. However, the improvement observed by PET is most often partial, and rarely complete.Figure 1.Improvement by PET according to the time of the test.References[1]Loricera J, et al. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2015; 34: 372-7. PMID: 26272121[2]Loricera J, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015; 33: S19-31. PMID: 25437450[3]Prieto-Peña D, et al. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021; 13: 1759720X211020917. PMID: 34211589[4]Martínez-Rodríguez I, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018; 47: 530-537. PMID: 28967430[5]Prieto-Peña D, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019; 48: 720-727. PMID: 29903537AcknowledgementsTocilizumab in Giant Cell Arteritis Spanish Collaborative Group: Juan C. González Nieto (H. Gregorio Marañón), Juan R. de Dios (H.U. Araba), Esther Fernández (H. Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca), Isabel de la Morena (H. Clínico Universitario de Valencia), Patricia Moya (H. Sant Pau), Roser Solans i Laqué (H. Valle de Hebrón), Eva Pérez Pampín (H.U. de Santiago), José L. Andréu (H.U. Puerta de Hierro), Marcelino Revenga (H. Ramón y Cajal), Juan P. Baldivieso Achá (H. U. de La Princesa), Eztizen Labrador (H. San Pedro), Andrea García-Valle (Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Palencia), Adela Gallego (Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Badajoz), Carlota Iñíguez (H.U. Lucus Augusti), Cristina Hidalgo (Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca), Noemí Garrido-Puñal (H. Virgen del Rocío), Ruth López-González (Complejo Hospitalario de Zamora), José A. Román-Ivorra (H.U. y Politécnico La Fe), Sara Manrique (H. Regional de Málaga), Paz Collado (H.U. Severo Ochoa), Enrique Raya (H. San Cecilio), Valvanera Pinillos (H. San Pedro), Francisco Navarro (H. General Universitario de Elche), Alejandro Olivé-Marqués (H. Trías i Pujol), Francisco J. Toyos (H.U. Virgen Macarena), María L. Marena Rojas (H. La Mancha Centro), Antoni Juan Más (H.U. Son Llàtzer), Beatriz Arca (H.U. San Agustín), Carmen Ordás-Calvo (H. Cabueñes), María D. Boquet (H. Arnau de Vilanova), Noelia Álvarez-Rivas (H.U. Lucus Augusti), María L. Velloso-Feijoo (H.U. de Valme), Cristina Campos (H. General Universitario de Valencia), Íñigo Rúa-Figueroa (H. Doctor Negrín), Antonio García (H. Virgen de las Nieves), Carlos Vázquez (H. Miguel Servet), Pau Lluch (H. Mateu Orfila), Carmen Torres (Complejo Asistencial de Ávila), Cristina Luna (H.U. Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria), Elena Becerra (H.U. de Torrevieja), Nagore Fernández-Llanio (H. Arnáu de Vilanova), Arantxa Conesa (H.U. de Castellón), Eva Salgado (Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense).Disclosure of InterestsJulio Sanchez-Martin: None declared, Javier Loricera: None declared, Santos Castañeda: None declared, Clara Moriano: None declared, J. Narváez: None declared, Vicente Aldasoro: None declared, Olga Maiz: None declared, Rafael Melero: None declared, Ignacio Villa-Blanco: None declared, Paloma Vela-Casasempere: None declared, Susana Romero-Yuste: None declared, Jose Luis Callejas-Rubio: None declared, Eugenio de Miguel: None declared, E. Galíndez-Agirregoikoa: None declared, Francisca Sivera: None declared, Carlos Fernández-López: None declared, Carles Galisteo: None declared, Iván Ferraz-Amaro: None declared, Lara Sanchez-Bilbao: None declared, Monica Calderón-Goercke: None declared, Jose Luis Hernández Hernández: None declared, Miguel A González-Gay Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, Celgene and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD, Jansen and Roche, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD and Roche

BackgroundIgA vasculitis (IgAV) and IgA nephropathy (IgAN) are inflammatory conditions [1, 2], that share pathogenic mechanisms [1], in which B-lymphocytes are described as key cells implicated in these processes. BAFF, APRIL and BAFF-R are cytokines implicated in the development of B-lymphocytes [3, 4] and in autoimmune processes [5, 6]. In this regard, an influence of BAFF, APRIL and BAFFR polymorphisms was observed on several immune-mediated conditions, being BAFF GCTGT>A a shared insertion-deletion variant for inflammatory conditions [7, 8].ObjectivesTo determine whether BAFF, APRIL and BAFFR could be used as differential biomarkers between IgAV and IgAN.MethodsBAFF rs374039502 (which colocalizes with BAFF GCTGT>A), two tag variants within APRIL (rs11552708 and rs6608) and two tag variants within BAFFR (rs7290134 and rs77874543) were genotyped in 394 Caucasian IgAV patients, 95 patients with IgAN and 832 matched healthy controls.ResultsSimilar genotype and allele frequencies were observed in the whole cohort of patients with IgAV when compared to those with IgAN when BAFF, APRIL and BAFFR variants were analyzed independently (Table 1). In accordance with that, no BAFF, APRIL and BAFFR genotype or allele differences were detected between IgAV patients who developed nephritis and patients with IgAN (Table 1). Additionally, no statistically significant differences were observed between the whole cohort of patients with IgAV and healthy controls as well as between patients with IgAN and healthy controls when each when BAFF, APRIL and BAFFR genetic variant was also analyzed independently (Table 1). Similar results were disclosed when haplotype frequencies of APRIL and BAFFR were compared between the different comparative groups above mentioned (data not shown).Table 1.Genotype and allele frequencies of BAFF, APRIL and BAFFR in the whole cohort of patients with IgAV, patients with IgAV who developed nephritis, patients with IgAN and healthy controls.PolymorphismChangeData setGenotypes, % (n)Alleles, % (n)1/21/11/22/212BAFF rs374039502T/AIgAV92.1 (363)7.9 (31)0.096.1 (757)3.9 (31)IgAV with nephritis90.1 (128)9.9 (14)0.095.1 (270)4.9 (14)IgAN91.6 (87)8.4 (8)0.095.8 (182)4.2 (8)Controls91.8 (764)7.8 (65)0.4 (3)95.7 (1593)4.3 (71)APRIL rs11552708G/AIgAV78.7 (310)20.1 (79)1.3 (5)88.7 (699)11.3 (89)IgAV with nephritis81.1 (116)18.9 (27)0.090.6 (259)9.4 (27)IgAN75.8 (72)23.2 (22)1.1 (1)87.4 (166)12.6 (24)Controls78.7 (655)19.7 (164)1.6 (13)88.6 (1474)11.4 (190)APRIL rs6608C/TIgAV72.6 (286)25.4 (100)2.0 (8)85.3 (672)14.7 (116)IgAV with nephritis75.5 (108)23.1 (33)1.4 (2)87.1 (249)12.9 (37)IgAN65.3 (62)30.5 (29)4.2 (4)80.5 (153)19.5 (37)Controls71.0 (591)26.6 (221)2.4 (20)84.3 (1403)15.7 (261)BAFFR rs7290134A/GIgAV58.9 (232)35.5 (140)5.6 (22)76.6 (604)23.4 (184)IgAV with nephritis60.1 (86)32.2 (46)7.7 (11)76.2 (218)23.8 (68)IgAN57.9 (55)38.9 (37)3.2 (3)77.4 (147)22.6 (43)Controls58.7 (488)35.1 (292)6.3 (52)76.2 (1268)23.8 (396)BAFFR rs77874543G/CIgAV83.2 (328)15.5 (61)1.3 (5)91.0 (717)9.0 (71)IgAV with nephritis83.1 (118)16.9 (24)0.091.5 (260)8.5 (24)IgAN86.3 (82)13.7 (13)0.093.2 (167)6.8 (13)Controls83.7 (696)16.0 (133)0.4 (3)91.6 (1525)8.4 (139)IgAV: IgA vasculitis; IgAN: IgA nephropathy.ConclusionOur results reveal a similar BAFF, APRIL and BAFFR genetic distribution in IgAV and IgAN, suggesting that these genes could not be used as differential biomarkers between these pathologies.References[1]N Engl J Med 2013;368:2402-14;[2]Am J Kidney Dis 1988;12:373-7;[3]J Exp Med 1999;189:1747-56;[4]Nat Genet 2005;37:793-4;[5]Arthritis Res Ther 2018;20:158;[6]Arthritis Res Ther 2020;22:157;[7]Engl J Med 2017;376:1615-26;[8]Sci Rep 2018;8:8195.AcknowledgementsThis study was supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and “Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias” (grant PI18/00042 and PI21/00042) from ‘Instituto de Salud Carlos III’ (ISCIII, Health Ministry, Spain). DP-P is a recipient of a Río Hortega programme fellowship from the ISCIII, co-funded by the European Social Fund (ESF, `Investing in your future´) [grant number CM20/00006]; SR-M is supported by funds of the RETICS Program co-funded by ERDF [grant number RD16/0012/0009]; VP-C is supported by a pre-doctoral grant from IDIVAL [grant number PREVAL 18/01]; RL-M is a recipient of a Miguel Servet type II programme fellowship from the ISCIII, co-funded by ESF `Investing in your future´ [grant number CPII21/00004].Disclosure of InterestsDiana Prieto-Peña: None declared, Fernanda Genre: None declared, Sara Remuzgo Martinez: None declared, Verónica Pulito-Cueto: None declared, Belén Atienza-Mateo: None declared, Belén Sevilla: None declared, Javier Llorca: None declared, Norberto Ortego: None declared, Maite Leonardo: None declared, Ana Peñalba: None declared, Luis Martín-Penagos: None declared, Jose Alberto Miranda Fillloy: None declared, J. Narváez: None declared, LUIS CAMINAL MONTERO: None declared, PAZ COLLADO: None declared, Antonio Fernandez-Nebro: None declared, Gisela Díaz-Cordoves: None declared, Secundino Cigarrán: None declared, Jesús Calviño: None declared, Carmen Cobelo: None declared, Diego de Argila: None declared, Esther F. Vicente-Rabaneda: None declared, Esteban Rubio-Romero: None declared, MANUEL LEON LUQUE: None declared, Juan María Blanco-Madrigal: None declared, E. Galíndez-Agirregoikoa: None declared, Oreste Gualillo: None declared, Javier Martin Ibanez: None declared, Santos Castañeda: None declared, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen and MSD, Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD and Roche, Miguel A González-Gay Speakers bureau: Abbvie, MSD, Jansen, and Roche, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, Celgene, MSD and GSK, Raquel López-Mejías: None declared

BackgroundGlucocorticoids (GC) are the mainstay therapy in Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA), initially at high doses (40-60 mg/day) followed by gradual glucocorticoid tapering. This treatment, especially in older patients, is associated with numerous adverse effects (AE). In addition, there are frequent relapses. Therefore, conventional synthetic immunosuppressants such as methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate, have been used with controversial results. Studies with biological immunosuppressants, such as TNFi have been ineffective; in contrast, tocilizumab (TCZ) has obtained positive results and was approved for the treatment of GCA.ObjectivesIn the ARTESER study we describe a) treatment with GC, synthetic or biological immunosuppressants; b) AE of CG; and c) evolution.MethodsARTESER is a retrospective observational study sponsored by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology. 26 Spanish centers participated and all new patients diagnosed with GCA from June 1, 2013 to March 29, 2019 were included. Data on GC and immunosuppressants were collected at the beginning and during the follow-up of GCA patients. For the calculation of the cumulative dose of GC, an application was developed that, by including the periods of time, dose and type of GC received during follow-up, performs the automatic calculation in mg of prednisone.ResultsOf the 1675 patients included, GC treatment was adequately recorded in 1650 patients (Table 1). All received oral treatment, being prednisone the most frequently drug used (N=1602, 97.09%). In addition, 426 (25.82%) patients received at least one iv pulse of methylprednisolone, being the 1000 mg regimen the most frequent (n=217; 50.9%). The total mean duration of GC treatment was 22.65 months. The mean cumulative dose per patient at the end of follow-up was 8514.98 mg of prednisone.Table 1.Corticosteroid treatment and immunosuppressive treatmentPatients taking oral corticosteroid1650 Prednisone, n (%)1602 (97.09) Methylprednisolone, n (%)164 (9.94) Deflazacort, n (%)64 (3.88)Patients receiving intravenous corticosteroid, n (%)426 (25.82)Mean duration of steroid treatment, mean (SD)22.65 (17.36)Mean cumulative dose at the end of follow-up per patient, mg of prednisone, mean (SD)8514.98 (6570.21)Methotrexate at diagnosis*, n (%)165 (9.9)Leflunomide at diagnosis*, n (%)2 (0.1)Azathioprine at diagnosis*, n (%)3 (0.2)Cyclophosphamide at diagnosis*, n (%)7 (0.4)Mycophenolate at diagnosis*, n (%)1 (0.1)Tocilizumab at diagnosis*, n (%)22 (1.3)Methotrexate during follow-up, n (%)532 (31.8)Leflunomide during follow-up, n (%)19 (1.2)Azathioprine during follow-up, n (%)26 (1.5)Cyclophosphamide during follow-up, n (%)10 (0.6)Mycophenolate during follow-up, n (%)10 (0.6)Tocilizumab during follow-up, n (%)153 (9.1)The most widely used immunosuppressant was MTX both at diagnosis (n=165; 9.9%) and during follow-up (n=532; 31.8%), followed by TCZ, at diagnosis (22; 1.3%) and at follow-up (153; 9.1%).AE with GC were described in 393 patients (23.8%), highlighting serious infections (n=67; 10.03%) followed by diabetes mellitus (n=63; 9.43%), steroid myopathy (n=53; 7.9%), vertebral fractures (n=47; 7.04%), non-vertebral fractures (n=36; 5.39%), heart failure (n=36; 5.39%), arterial hypertension (n=34; 5.09%) and neuropsychiatric alterations (n=27; 4.04%).During the follow-up, 334 (19.9%) patients had relapses, 532 (31.8%) were hospitalized on some occasion, and 142 patients (8.48%) died. The main cause of death were infections (n=44; 30.99%), neoplasms (n=23; 16.2%), cardiovascular (n=15; 10.56%), and cerebrovascular (n=10; 7.04%).ConclusionThe main treatment for GCA was oral GC, which were required for almost two years on average, in a quarter of patients associated with IV pulses. The cumulative steroid dose was high as well as the side effects. MTX was the most widely used immunosuppressant and TCZ was prescribed in 10%. Relapses and admissions at the hospital were relatively frequent.AcknowledgementsThis study has been funded by ROCHE Farma. The funder has not participated in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the resultsDisclosure of InterestsNone declared

BackgroundWomen with inflammatory arthropaties (IA) have fertility problems and complications during pregnancy and frequently biological therapy (BT) is required for the disease control.ObjectivesTo evaluate pregnancy in women with IA in a multidisciplinary unit composed of Rheumatologists and Obstetricians: describe disease evolution, complications and treatment.MethodsRetrospective and descriptive study of the evolution of pregnancy in patients with IA [Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Spondyloarthritis (SpA), Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA)] and follow-up in a multidisciplinary unit for more than 15 years (until December 2021). Demographics, maternal disease, time until conception, previous abortions and presence of antibodies were collected. In addition, during follow-up, treatment, abortions, cesarean sections (C-section), preterm births, disease activity and maternal/fetal complications were collected.ResultsWe registered 49 pregnancies (39 women): 27 RA (55.1%), 9 SpA (18.4%), 9 PsA (18.4%) and 4 JIA (8.1%). Maternal average age at diagnosis was 26.8±6.7 years and average age at childbirth/abortion was 34.5±5.3 years.It took an average time of 9±7.7 months to conceive. 8.2% received fertility treatment with in vitro fertilization techniques.AntiRo antibodies were registered in 6.3% of patients and 28.6% had at least 1 antiphospholipid antibody.At the time of gestational desire/gestation 24 women (13 RA, 5 SpA, 3 PsA, 3 JIA) were receiving BT: 14 certolizumab (CZP), 5 adalimumab (ADA), 4 etanercept (ETN). 1 patient was being treated with baricitinib (BARI). Due to pregnancy, ADA was changed to CZP in 3 women and BT was stopped in 6 cases (3 ETN, 2 ADA, 1 CZP) as well as BARI. In 2 cases, ADA was stopped at week 17 of pregnancy (medical indication). Pregnancy was completed with BT (CZP) in 15 cases.9 abortions were registered prior to follow-up in the unit (0.23 abortions/mother) and 3 (2 RA, 1 PsA) during follow-up (0.07 abortions/mother): 2 (1 RA, 1 PsA) of them in women with CZP. RA patient had positive antiphospholipid antibodies and was a smoker and the other one had moderate disease activity by the time of the abortion. C-section was performed in 26.1% of cases. Preterm birth (A total of 19 different fetal/maternal complications were registered during follow-up: 8 in the BT group (42.1%) compared to 11 (57.9%) in the group without BT, being Intrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR) more frequent among women with BT. Infections were not more common in patients with BT. Table 1.Table 1.COMPLICATIONSWITH BT (n, %) n: 17WITHOUT BT (n, %) n: 32IUGR3 (17.6)1 (3.1)LBW2 (11.8)2 (6.2)INFECTION1 (5.9)4 (12.5)CHOLESTASIS0 (0)2 (6.2)PREECLAMPSIA0 (0)1 (3.1)DM2 (11.8)1 (3.1)HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE0 (0)0 (0)NEPHROPATY0 (0)0 (0)NEONATAL LUPUS0 (0)0 (0)HEART BLOCK0 (0)0 (0)MALFORMATION0 (0)0 (0)HELLP SYNDROME0 (0)0 (0)TOTAL811Regarding concomitant treatment, low dose prednisone was used in 32.7% of pregnancies, hydroxychloroquine in 44.9%, sulfasalazine in 8.2% and acetylsalicylic acid in 51%. We didn´t find differences in the use of these treatments between the two groups.Median DAS28 among RA patients with available data was under 2.6 throughout pregnancy as well as previously and posteriorly. No differences in median DAS28 were found between women with BT and without BT. SpA patients had BASDAI lower than 4 in both groups during pregnancy and previously.ConclusionIn our series, as described in the literature, women with IA are older and more likely to have preterm births compared to general population. Appropriate disease control was maintained during pregnancy, also previously and afterwards. We registered more IUGR, low birth weight (LBW) and diabetes mellitus (DM) among women with BT but lower rate of infections. Given the low number of patients with BT no statistically significant conclusions about complications can be drawn. Therefore, more studies among pregnant women with BT are necessary.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) is an inhibitor of JAK kinases recently approved by EMA for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in Europe (January 2021) 1. UPA has shown efficacy in refractory patients to anti-TNF 2.ObjectivesA) to assess efficacy and safety of UPA in the first cases in Spain in clinical practice. B) to compare the profile of clinical practice patients with clinical trial of UPA in PsA refractory to biologics 2.MethodsStudy of 39 patients of clinical practice with PsA treated with UPA in Spain. The diagnosis of PsA was made using CASPAR criteria. Patients who received at least one dose of UPA were included. Results are expressed as percentage, mean±SD or median [IRQ].Results39 patients (29♀/10♂), mean age of 51.5 ± 11.4 years (Table 1). Pattern joint involvement was as follows: peripheral (n=19), axial (3) and mixed (17) During the PsA evolution, patients also presented enthesitis (59%) nail involvement (28.2%) and dactylitis (35.9%).Table 1.CLINICAL PRACTICE N=39CLINICAL TRIAL N=211pBaseline demographic parametersAge, years (mean±SD)51.5±11.453.0 ± 12.00.4706Sex, n (%) female29 (74.4)113 (53.6)0.016Disease CharacteristicsDuration of psoriatic arthritis, year (mean±SD)12.41±8.689.5 ± 8.40.0499HAQ-DI1.10± 0.421.10 ± 0.61.000Swollen joint count, mean±SD6±7.2911.3 ± 8.2< 0.001Painful joint count, mean±SD7.48±7.5824.9 ± 17.3< 0.001Enthesitis, n (%)23 (59.0) MASES172 (81.5) SPARCCDactylitis, n (%)14 (35.9)55(26.1)0.217PASI score, mean±SD2.72±2.3210.1 ± 9.2< 0.001CRP (mg/L)11.1±18.8611.2 ± 18.51.000Oral glucocorticoid use, n (%)17 (43.6)22 (10.4)< 0.001Concomitant synthetic DMARDs, n (%)16(41)98 (46,4)0.532Previous use of biological DMARDs, n (%)39(100)195 (92.4)0.075Number of prior failed biologic DMARDs, n(%)13(7.7)135 (63.7)24(10.3)35 (16.5)0.383≥332(82)24 (11.3)UPA in monotherapy, n (%)23(59)113 (53.6)0.531HAQ-DI Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, PASI Psoriasis Area Severity Index, CRP C-reactive protein, DMARD disease-modifying antirheumatic drugPrior to UPA, most patients (59%) had received oral prednisone or equivalent (max 9.03±12.12mg/d), synthetic immunosuppressants (mean1.8±0.9) and biological therapy (TB) (4.5±2.1). TB were as follows: etanercept (25), adalimumab (28), infliximab (12), golimumab (16), certolizumab (15), secukinumab (29), ustekinumab (21) Abatacept (2), brodalumab (1) and ixekizumab (17). Apremilast was used in 13, Tofacitinib in 11 and filgotinib in 1.After a mean follow-up of 12.41± 8.68.3 years after the PsA diagnosis, UPA was started (15 mg/24 h), 43.6% associated prednisone (7.35±3.36 mg/d). In 16 (41%) UPA was started in combined therapy: methotrexate (9), salazopyrin (3) and leflunomide (4); in the remaining 23 (59%), monotherapy was prescribed. At UPA onset patients presented peripheral arthritis (76.9%), axial involvement (35.8%), skin involvement (25.6%), enthesitis (41%), and dactylitis (10.3%).Patients of clinical practice compared with clinical trial there were more women, have a longer duration of PsA, and received a higher proportion of previous TB (Table 1).After a median follow-up of 4.28 ± 2.6 months, patients showed prompt improvement in activity indexes (DAS28, DAPSA) (Figure 1) and laboratory test (CRP mg/L decreased from 4.00 [1.5;10.0] to 0.40 [0.30;4.00] (p 0.024) at the sixth month. Extra-articular manifestations also improved: dactylitis in 25% patients, enthesitis (43.8%), skin involvement (40%) and onychopathy (50%).Figure 1.No serious events were reported. Minor side effects were reported in 7 patients (17.9%), and UPA was discontinued in 9 due to inefficiency.ConclusionIn this preliminary study, first patients of clinical practice in Spain with UPA in PsA had a longer evolution and received a greater number of TB than those of clinical trial. As in the UPA clinical trial, it seems effective, rapid and relatively safe in daily clinical practice for refractory PsA.References[1]https://www.ema.europa.eu/en[2]Mease PJ, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:312–320Disclosure of InterestsNone declared

BackgroundTocilizumab (TCZ) has shown efficacy in large-vessel vasculitis, including Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) (1-3). Clinical trials with TCZ in GCA was performed with intravenous (iv) TCZ in a phase 2 trial (3), and with subcutaneous (sc) TCZ in the phase 3 GiACTA (4). However, in GCA there are no studies comparing IV vs SC TCZ.ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy of TCZ in GCA patients according to the route of administration IV-TCZ vs SC-TCZ.MethodsMulticentre study of 471 patients diagnosed with GCA and treated with TCZ. They were divided into 2 groups according to the route of administration: a) IV, and b) SC. GCA was diagnosed by: a) ACR criteria, and/or b) temporal artery biopsy, and/or c) imaging techniques. Sustained remission was established according to EULAR definitions (5).ResultsWe studied 471 patients (mean age, 74±9 years) treated with TCZ, 238 with IV-TCZ and 233 with SC-TCZ (Table 1). The time between diagnosis of GCA and TCZ onset was shorter in the SC TCZ group. Regarding acute phase reactants at the beginning of TCZ, no differences were found between both groups. There were no significant differences in sustained remission or in glucocorticoid-sparing effect of TCZ (Figure 1). Patients on IV TCZ treatment suffered more relevant adverse effects during follow-up.Table 1.Main characteristics of GCA patients treated with intravenous and subcutaneous tocilizumabIV TCZ (n= 238)SC TCZ (n=233)PBaseline characteristics at TCZ onsetAge(years), mean±SD73.3±8.773.7±9.30.63Sex, female/male (% female)175/63 (73)167/66 (72)0.65Time from GCA diagnosis to TCZ onset (months), median [IQR]8 [3-23.5]5 [2-15]0.016ESR, mm 1st hour, median [IQR]30.5 [12.5-53]28 [10-56.5]0.66CRP, mg/dL, median [IQR]1.4 [0.5-2.8]1.4 [0.4-4]0.92Prednisone dose, mg/day, median [IQR]20 [10-40]20 [10-36.2]0.69Safety after TCZ onsetFollow-up, (months), median [IQR]27 [16-44]14 [6-26.7]Relevant adverse events, n (%)80 (34)46 (19)Relevant adverse events per 100 patients-year12.715.2NSSerious infections, n (%)44 (18)21 (9)0.44Serious infections per 100 patients-year6.77.2NSMACEs, n (%)/1 (0.4)0 (0)-MACEs per 100 patients-year0.10NSMalignancies, n (%)4 (1.7)1 (0.4)0.20Malignancies per 100 patients-year0.60.3NSAbbreviations: CRP: C-reactive protein; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; GCA: giant cell arteritis; IQR: interquartile range; IV: intravenous; MACEs: major adverse cardiovascular events; NS: non significant; SC: subcutaneous; SD: standard deviationConclusionIn GCA, TCZ seems equally effective and safe regardless of the route of administration IV or SC.References[1]Calderón-Goercke M, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019; 49: 126-135. PMID: 30655091[2]Prieto-Peña D, et al. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021; 13: 1759720X211020917. PMID: 34211589[3]Villiger PM, et al. Lancet. 2016; 387:1921-1927. PMID: 26952547[4]Stone JH, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377:317-328. PMID: 28745999Hellmich B, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020; 79: 19-30. PMID: 31270110Disclosure of InterestsNone declared

BackgroundIgA vasculitis (IgAV) and IgA nephropathy (IgAN) are inflammatory conditions that share pathogenic and molecular mechanisms [1] and may represent different outcomes of a continuous spectrum of the disease [2]. Interleukin (IL)-33 is a cytokine that exerts its biological functions by binding to its receptor, IL-1 receptor like 1 (IL-1RL1) [3]. Several lines of evidence demonstrate that genetic variants located both in IL33 and IL1RL1 genes are implicated in the increased risk of numerous immune-mediated diseases [4].ObjectivesTo determine whether IgAV and IgAN exhibit a different IL33-IL1RL1 association pattern.MethodsThree tag genetic variants within IL33 (rs3939286, rs7025417 and rs7044343) and three tag polymorphisms within IL1RL1 (rs2310173, rs13015714 and rs2058660), which cover the major variability of these loci and that were previously associated with several inflammatory diseases were genotyped in 380 Caucasian patients with IgAV, 96 patients with IgAN and 845 sex and ethnically matched healthy controls.ResultsSimilar genotype and allele frequencies were observed in the whole cohort of patients with IgAV when compared to those with IgAN when IL33-IL1RL1 genetic variants were analyzed independently (Table 1). In accordance with that, no IL33-IL1RL1 genotype or allele differences were detected between IgAV patients who developed nephritis and patients with IgAN (Table 1). Additionally, no statistically significant differences between the whole cohort of patients with IgAV and healthy controls as well as between patients with IgAN and healthy controls were observed when each IL33-IL1RL1 genetic variant was also analyzed independently (Table 1). Similar results were disclosed when haplotype frequencies were compared between the different comparative groups above mentioned (data not shown).Table 1.Genotype and allele frequencies of IL33 and IL1RL1 in the whole cohort of patients with IgAV, patients with IgAV who developed nephritis, patients with IgAN and healthy controls.PolymorphismChangeData setGenotypes, % (n)Alleles, % (n)1/21/11/22/212IL33 rs3939286C/TIgAV49.1 (186)40.9 (155)10.0 (38)69.5 (527)30.5 (231)IgAV with nephritis48.5 (66)39.7 (54)11.8 (16)68.4 (186)31.6 (86)IgAN43.8 (42)49.0 (47)7.3 (7)68.2 (131)31.8 (61)Controls49.0 (414)41.4 (350)9.6 (81)69.7 (1178)30.3 (512)IL33 rs7025417T/CIgAV68.1 (254)29.5 (110)2.4 (9)82.8 (618)17.2 (128)IgAV with nephritis69.9 (93)27.1 (36)3.0 (4)83.5 (222)16.5 (44)IgAN61.5 (59)37.5 (36)1.0 (1)80.2 (154)19.8 (38)Controls70.8 (598)25.9 (219)3.3 (28)83.7 (1415)16.3 (275)IL33 rs7044343T/CIgAV42.3 (160)42.1 (159)15.6 (59)63.4 (479)36.6 (277)IgAV with nephritis44.5 (61)39.4 (54)16.1 (22)64.2 (176)35.8 (98)IgAN40.6 (39)49.0 (47)10.4 (10)65.1 (125)34.9 (67)Controls44.5 (376)43.9 (371)11.6 (98)66.4 (1123)33.6 (567)IL1RL1 rs2310173G/TIgAV29.2 (111)46.1 (175)24.7 (94)52.2 (397)47.8 (363)IgAV with nephritis32.1 (44)43.1 (59)24.8 (34)53.6 (147)46.4 (127)IgAN20.8 (20)46.9 (45)32.3 (31)44.3 (85)55.7 (107)Controls30.2 (255)46.7 (395)23.1 (195)53.6 (905)46.4 (785)IL1RL1 rs13015714T/GIgAV56.3 (211)39.5 (148)4.3 (16)76.0 (570)24.0 (180)IgAV with nephritis61.8 (84)33.8 (46)4.4 (6)78.7 (214)21.3 (58)IgAN54.2 (52)40.6 (39)5.2 (5)74.5 (143)25.5 (49)Controls57.2 (483)37.2 (314)5.7 (48)75.7 (1280)24.3 (410)IL1RL1 rs2058660A/GIgAV56.9 (215)38.6 (146)4.5 (17)76.2 (576)23.8 (180)IgAV with nephritis62.2 (84)31.9 (43)5.9 (8)78.1 (211)21.9 (59)IgAN53.1 (51)42.7 (41)4.2 (4)74.5 (143)25.5 (49)Controls56.7 (479)37.5 (317)5.8 (49)75.4 (1275)24.6 (415)IgAV: IgA vasculitis; IgAN: IgA nephropathy.ConclusionOur results reveal that IgAV and IgAN share a similar IL33-IL1RL1 association pattern.References[1]N Engl J Med 2013;368:2402-14;[2]Am J Kidney Dis 1988;12:373-7;[3]J Immunol 2007;179:2551–5,[4]Sci Rep 2021;11:16163AcknowledgementsThis study was supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and “Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias” (grant PI18/00042 and PI21/00042) from ‘Instituto de Salud Carlos III’ (ISCIII, Health Ministry, Spain). DP-P is a recipient of a Río Hortega programme fellowship from the ISCIII, co-funded by the European Social Fund (ESF, `Investing in your future´) [grant number CM20/00006]; SR-M is supported by funds of the RETICS Program co-funded by ERDF [grant number RD16/0012/0009]; VP-C is supported by a pre-doctoral grant from IDIVAL [grant number PREVAL 18/01]; RL-M is a recipient of a Miguel Servet type II programme fellowship from the ISCIII, co-funded by ESF `Investing in your future´ [grant number CPII21/00004].Disclosure of InterestsDiana Prieto-Peña: None declared, Sara Remuzgo Martinez: None declared, Fernanda Genre: None declared, Verónica Pulito-Cueto: None declared, Belén Atienza-Mateo: None declared, Belén Sevilla: None declared, Javier Llorca: None declared, Norberto Ortego: None declared, Maite Leonardo: None declared, Ana Peñalba: None declared, Luis Martín-Penagos: None declared, Jose Alberto Miranda Fillloy: None declared, J. Narváez: None declared, LUIS CAMINAL MONTERO: None declared, PAZ COLLADO: None declared, Antonio Fernandez-Nebro: None declared, Gisela Díaz-Cordoves: None declared, Secundino Cigarrán: None declared, Jesús Calviño: None declared, Carmen Cobelo: None declared, Patricia Quiroga Colino: None declared, Javier Sanchez Perez: None declared, Esteban Rubio-Romero: None declared, MANUEL LEON LUQUE: None declared, Juan María Blanco-Madrigal: None declared, E. Galíndez-Agirregoikoa: None declared, Oreste Gualillo: None declared, Javier Martin Ibanez: None declared, Santos Castañeda: None declared, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen and MSD, Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD and Roche, Miguel A González-Gay Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, Celgene, MSD and GSK, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD, Jansen and Roche, Raquel López-Mejías: None declared

BackgroundVisual involvement is the most feared complication of Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) (1-5). Permanent visual loss (PVL) may be preceded by transient visual loss. Once blindness is established, the prognosis is poor. Most of the series of predictive factors of visual involvement in GCA are old and with a small number of patients.ObjectivesTo assess the predictive factors of visual involvement and PVL in GCA.MethodsMulticenter observational study of 471 patients with GCA. The diagnosis of GCA was performed between 2016 and 2021 according to: a) ACR criteria, and/or b) temporal artery biopsy, and/or c) imaging techniques.From the 471 patients, we selected patients who developed a) visual involvement at any time during GCA and b) PVL. PVL was defined as partial or complete visual loss of >24 hours. Predictive factors were identified by multivariate analysis.ResultsVisual involvement was observed in 122 cases and PVL in 60 (Table 1). The ischemic and systemic manifestations set of variables associated with visual involvement were headache, and jaw claudication, whereas large-vessel involvement was a protective variable (Figure 1). The area under the curve (AUC) for the model was 0.72 (95%CI 0.67-0.77; pFigure 1.Forest plot of multivariate analysis.Table 1.Main features of the patientsOverall (n= 471)GCA without visual involvement (n=349)GCA with visual involvement (n= 122)GCA with PVL (n=60)P visual vs non visual involvementP PVL vs non visual involvementAge at diagnosis of GCA (mean±SD)72±971±975±875±90.0010.001Female/Male (% of female)342/129 (73)265/84 (76)77/45 (63)41/19 (68)0.0060.21Positive TAB, n (%)201 (43)146 (42)55 (45)33 (55)0.530.34Cardiovascular risk factorsHigh blood pressure, n (%)272 (58)189 (54)83 (68)40 (67)0.0130.058Dyslipidemia, n (%)241 (51)175 (50)66 (54)32 (53)0.610.63Diabetes, n (%)81 (17)50 (14)31 (25)16 (27)0.0070.016Previous or current smoking history, n (%)47 (10)31 (9)16 (13)8 (13)0.210.27CHADS2 score, median [IQR]1 [1-2]1 [0-2]2 [1-2]2 [1-2]0.0010.004Ischemic manifestationsHeadache, n (%)259 (55)167 (48)92 (75)42 (70)0.0000.002Jaw claudication, n (%)112 (24)63 (18)49 (40)26 (43)0.0000.000Systemic manifestationsFever, n (%)57 (12)47 (13)10 (8)4 (7)0.120.20Constitutional syndrome, n (%)175 (37)132 (38)43 (35)20 (33)0.550.47PmR, n (%)284 (60)218 (62)66 (54)29 (48)0.0940.022Large-vessel involvement, n (%)254 (54)211 (60)43 (35)20 (33)0.0000.000ESR, mm/1st hour, median [IQR]32 [12-57]30 [11-54]34 [15-67]42 [12-67]0.220.28CRP (mg/dL), median [IQR]1.5 [0.5-3.4]1.4 [0.5-3.0]1.5 [0.4-4.7]1.5 [0.4-3.6]0.0420.30In the same line, the set of variables associated with PVL were headache, and jaw claudication. By contrast, polymyalgia rheumatica (PmR), and large-vessel involvement were protective factors (Figure 1). The AUC for this model was 0.77 (95%CI 0.71-0.83; pConclusionHeadache, and jaw claudication seem to be associated with visual involvement in GCA, while large vessel involvement seems to be a protective factor. PmR also appears to be a protective factor for the development of PVL.References[1]Calderón-Goercke M, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019; 49: 126-135. PMID: 30655091[2]Baalbaki H, et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2021; 40: 3207-3217. PMID: 33580374[3]González-Gay MA, et al. Arthritis Rheum. 1998; 41: 1497-1504. PMID: 9704651[4]Prieto-Peña D, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019; 48: 720-727. PMID: 29903537[5]Martínez-Rodríguez I, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018; 47: 530-537. PMID: 28967430AcknowledgementsTocilizumab in Giant Cell Arteritis Spanish Collaborative Group.Disclosure of InterestsLara Sanchez-Bilbao: None declared, Javier Loricera Speakers bureau: Roche, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Celgene, and Grünenthal, Clara Moriano: None declared, Santos Castañeda Speakers bureau: UAM-Roche, EPID- Future chair, Department of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain., Iván Ferraz-Amaro: None declared, J. Narváez: None declared, Vicente Aldasoro: None declared, Olga Maiz: None declared, Rafael Melero: None declared, Ignacio Villa-Blanco: None declared, Paloma Vela-Casasempere: None declared, Susana Romero-Yuste: None declared, Jose Luis Callejas-Rubio: None declared, Eugenio de Miguel: None declared, E. Galíndez-Agirregoikoa: None declared, Francisca Sivera: None declared, Carlos Fernández-López: None declared, Carles Galisteo: None declared, Julio Sanchez-Martin: None declared, Monica Calderón-Goercke: None declared, J. Luis Hernández: None declared, Miguel A González-Gay Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, Celgene, and MSD., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Jansen, and Roche,, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Lilly, Janssen, and MSD., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD, and Roche

BackgroundThe use of telehealth in the control of rheumatic diseases had been scarce, but COVID pandemic forced rheumatologists to try alternatives to classic face-to-face consultation. In times of lockdown phone calls and video calls were easy to perform, but later on an asynchronous model of teleconsultation would probably fit better. The purpose of this study is to prove that asynchronous whatsapp teleconsultation is an effective alternative to classic healthcare consultation models out of pandemic. So, we selected axial spondyloarthritis (SPA) patients with stable controlled disease under biological therapy and we offered teleconsultation with a whatsapp platform chatbot, that´s been created for this purpose as a way to send PROMS (BASDAI, VAS for patient global disease assesment, ASDAS, and 3 questions for extraarticular disease), and receive feedback and schedule for the following visitsObjectivesTo prove that teleconsultation through whatsapp platform was not inferior to face-to-face consultation in terms of mantaining axial SPA patients disease under control. And to prove that teleconsultation model was less time and resources consuming for the patient and the system, and probably preferred by a group of patients.MethodsProspective study with retrospective control of patients diagnosed of Axial SPA, fullfilling ASAS criteria and with stable disease under biological therapy for the previous year, recruited from 01 jan to 30 nov 2021. We offered them two teleconsultation visits using their personal mobile device, once every four months and a face-to-face visit at the end of the study (one year since inclusion). If there is a deviation in the lab test or PROMs or if the patient asks for contact (via whatsapp) he is called up by the person in charge (nurse/doctor) that solves the question and arranges an aditional presential visit when needed. We consider disease controlled if BASDAI Results62 patients (52 men and 10 women) were recruited, mean aged 47,7 years (range 26-72), 36% were under 45 years at the time of inclusion. They were mostly Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) (90%; only 6 non radiographic SPA), positive HLA B27 (90%) and with longstading disease (mean 24 years), and only 6 patients less than five years. 16% had peripheral involvement (arthritis/dactylitis), and 40% presented extraarticular manifestations, mainly uveitis (20%). 70% were under their first biological (TNF inhbitor, mostly adalimumab), 24% were refractory to the first, 3 patients to 2 previous biologicals and just 1 patient was refractoy to 5. 50% of patients were treated with tapered dose of TNF inhibitors.We have now a mean followup of 10 months, in which we have had 109 scheduled teleconsultations with aditional need of 36 phone calls and 10 aditional presential visits for the whole group. To date, 3 patients with reduced dose increased to standard dose of biological drug and none change of biological was required.ConclusionAsynchronous teleconsultation seems promising, specially for followup in patients with stable rheumatic disease, less interfering with daily activities, less time consuming for the patient and less resource consuming for healthcare systems, with no impairment of disease control and quailty of healthcare. This study will also show patient´s preference, and we´ll try to describe a profile of patient more prone to teleconsultation.References[1]Song Y, Bernard L, Jorgensen C, Dusfour G, Pers YM. The Challenges of Telemedicine in Rheumatology. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Oct 13;8:746219. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.746219.AcknowledgementsIn behalf of INNOBIDE working groupDisclosure of InterestsMaria Luz García-Vivar Grant/research support from: Novartis provided a grant for this study, Natalia Rivera: None declared, E. Galíndez-Agirregoikoa: None declared, EDUARDO CUENDE: None declared, ANA ROSA INTXAURBE PELLEJERO: None declared, Juan Maria Blanco Madrigal: None declared, L Vega: None declared, C García: None declared, MARIA ENJUANES: None declared, María Jesús Allande: None declared, OLAIA BEGOÑA FERNANDEZ BERRIZBEITIA: None declared, Rosa Exposito: None declared, MARIA ESTHER RUIZ LUCEA: None declared, Ignacio Torre-Salaberri: None declared

BackgroundAn important aspect in the clinical care of patients with PsA is to be able to predict the occurrence of a flare using tools and information that are readily available in daily clinical practice. This information would provide added value in disease management, yet, unfortunately, scarcely any studies provide it.ObjectivesTo identify patient- and disease-related characteristics that make it possible to predict flares in recent-onset PsA.MethodsWe performed a multicenter observational prospective study (2-year follow-up, regular annual visits), promoted by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology [1]. The study population comprised patients aged ≥18 years who fulfilled the CASPAR criteria [2], with less than 2 years since the onset of symptoms. The intention at the baseline visit was to reflect the patient’s situation before disease progress was modified by the treatments prescribed in the rheumatology department.All patients gave their informed consent. The study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Principality of Asturias.Flares were defined as inflammatory episodes affecting the axial skeleton and/or peripheral joints (joints, digits or entheses) and diagnosed by a rheumatologist between the previous and the current visit.The dataset contained data for the independent variables from the baseline visit and from follow-up visit number 1. These were matched with the outcome measures from follow-up visits 1 and 2, respectively. We trained logistic regression models and a random forest–type machine learning algorithm to analyze the association between the outcome measure and the variables selected in the bivariate analysis (statistical significance was defined as p value ResultsThe sample comprised 158 patients. 14.6% were lost to follow-up. At the first follow-up visit, 37.6% of the patients who attended the clinic had experienced flares since the baseline visit. Of those who attended the second visit, 27.4% had experienced flares since the first visit. Table 1 shows the results of the logistic regression analysis. The variables predicting flares between visits selected in this analysis were age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index, PsAID score, number of digits with onychopathy, and level of physical activity. The direction of the association was negative for the Charlson index and physical activity and positive for PsAID score and onychopathy.Table 1.Variables associated with flares between visits selected in the logistic regression analysis.VariableRegression coefficient95% CIp value (Wald test)Age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity Index-4.655(-7.021, -2.289)PsAID score2.212(1.171, 3.254)No. of digits with onychopathy1.420(0.331, 2.511)0.011Level of physical activity-1.221(-1.87, -0.572)When the random forest machine learning algorithm was trained with these 4 variables, the order of importance (from more to less) attributed by the model was as follows: PsAID score, number of digits with onychopathy, age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index, and level of physical activity. The percentage of hits in the confusion matrix was 78.38%.ConclusionPsAID score was the first variable in the predictive hierarchy generated in our model, supporting its importance in the management and follow-up of PsA patients.References[1]Queiro R, Laiz A, Seoane-Mato D, Galindez Agirregoikoa E, Montilla C, Park HS, et al. Spanish Registry of Recent-onset Psoriatic Arthritis (REAPSER study): Aims and methodology. Reumatol Clin (Engl Ed) 2019;15:252-7.[2]Taylor W, Gladman D, Helliwell P, Marchesoni A, Mease P, Mielants H, et al. Classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis: development of new criteria from a large international study. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:2665-73.AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge José Luis Fernández Sueiro for the conception of the study; José Miguel Carrasco for his contribution to the design of the study; Nuria Montero and Cristina Oliva for her contribution to data monitoring; Ana Serrano and Cristina Pruenza for her contribution to data analysis; Thomas O´Boyle for the translation; and non-author investigators of Proyecto REAPSER Study Group.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared

BackgroundTocilizumab (TCZ) has shown to be useful in the treatment of large-vessel vasculitis, including giant cell arteritis (GCA) (1-4). There is general agreement on the initial and the standard maintenance dose of TCZ. However, information on duration and optimization of TCZ in GCA is really scarce.ObjectivesOur aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of TCZ therapy optimization in an unselected wide series of GCA in real-world clinical practice.MethodsMulticenter study on 471 patients with GCA who received TCZ therapy. Once complete remission was reached (n=231) TCZ was optimized in 125 patients. We compared patients in whom TCZ was optimized (TCZOPT group) or not (TCZNON-OPT group). Complete remission was defined as normalization of clinical and analytical (CRP and ESR) data. Optimization was done by decreasing the dose and/or prolonging the TCZ dosing interval progressively. We performed a comparison in effectiveness and safety parameters between optimized and non-optimized patients.ResultsWe evaluated 231 GCA patients treated with TCZ with complete remission. No demographic or laboratory data differences was observed at TCZ onset between both groups (Table 1). The mean prednisone dose was higher in the TCZNON-OPT group at TCZ onset. The first TCZ optimization was performed after a median [25-75th] follow-up of 12 [6-17] months.Table 1.Main general features at TCZ onset of 231 GCA patients with prolonged remission.OPTIMIZED-TCZ GROUP (n=125)NON-OPTIMIZED TCZ GROUP (n=106)pGENERAL FEATURES Age, years, mean± SD72.7±8.674±8.70.197 Sex, female/male n (% female)91/34 (72.8)74/32 (69.8)0.616 Time from GCA diagnosis to TCZ onset (months), median [IQR]8 [2-21.5]5 [2-21]0.384SYSTEMIC MANIFESTATIONS Fever, n (%)14 (11.2)15 (14.2)0.500 Constitutional syndrome, n (%)54 (43.2)39 (36.8)0.322 PMR, n (%)75 (60)69 (65.1)0.426ISCHEMIC MANIFESTATIONS Visual involvement, n (%)14 (11.2)16 (15.1)0.380 Headache, n (%)66 (52.8)62 (58.5)0.386 Jaw claudication, n (%)24 (19.2)25 (23.6)0.417AORTITIS (large-vessel involvement), n (%)65 (52)42 (39.6)0.060ANALYTICAL FINDINGS ESR, mm/1st hour, mean (SD)39.1±29.337.5±33.50.334 CRP, mg/dL mean (SD)2.6± 3.42.7± 40.305 Hemoglobin, g/dL, mean (SD)13.5±9.612.9±1.50.153GLUCOCORTICOIDS Prednisone dose, mg/d mean (SD)20.3±16.427±17.80.001Abbreviations: CRP: C-reactive protein; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; GCA: giant cell arteritis; IQR: interquartile range; IV: intravenous; PMR: polymyalgia rheumatica; SC: subcutaneous; SD: standard deviation; TCZ: tocilizumab.The median prednisone dose at first TCZ optimization was 2.5 [0-5] mg/day. At the end of follow-up prolonged remission was observed in 78.2% of TCZOPT group compared with 66.7% in the TCZNON-OPT group (p= 0.001) (Figure 1). Seven (5.6%) of the 125 optimized cases relapsed. Serious adverse events were similar in both groups, while serious infections were more frequent in the TCZNON-OPT group (p=0.009).ConclusionOnce complete remission is reached in GCA patients under TCZ treatment, optimization of biologic may be performed. Based on our experience it could be performed by reducing the dose or by prolonging dosing interval of TCZ. It seems to be an effective and safe practice.References[1]Calderón-Goercke M, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019; 49: 126-135. PMID: 30655091[2]Loricera J, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016; 34: S44-53. PMID: 27050507[3]Prieto-Peña D, et al. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021; 13: 1759720X211020917. PMID: 34211589[4]Loricera J, et al. Int Immunopharmacol. 2015; 27: 213-9. PMID: 25828585Disclosure of InterestsCarmen Álvarez-Reguera: None declared, Monica Calderón-Goercke: None declared, J. Loricera: None declared, Clara Moriano: None declared, Santos Castañeda: None declared, J. Narváez: None declared, Vicente Aldasoro: None declared, Olga Maiz: None declared, Rafael Melero: None declared, Ignacio Villa-Blanco: None declared, Paloma Vela-Casasempere: None declared, Susana Romero-Yuste: None declared, Jose Luis Callejas-Rubio: None declared, Eugenio de Miguel: None declared, E. Galíndez-Agirregoikoa: None declared, Francisca Sivera: None declared, Carlos Fernández-López: None declared, Carles Galisteo: None declared, Iván Ferraz-Amaro: None declared, Julio Sanchez-Martin: None declared, Lara Sanchez-Bilbao: None declared, Jose Luis Hernández Hernández: None declared, Miguel Á. González-Gay Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and MSD., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD, Jansen and Roche., Ricardo Blanco Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, Lilly and MSD, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD and Roche.