Search

BackgroundSystemic sclerosis (SSc) is a complex autoimmune disease with a strong genetic component. However, the underlying mechanism by which genetics increase disease risk is still unknown. The most recent GWAS studies have identified 27 independent signals associated to SSc [1]. However, the majority of these signals affect regulatory elements that can regulate genes often located hundreds of kilobases away.The challenge in the post-GWAS era is to use functional genomics to translate genetic findings into patients’ benefit, particularly in disease-relevant cell types.ObjectivesIn this study we use chromatin conformation and gene expression analysis in patient derived primary cells and healthy individuals to assess potential mechanisms by which GWAS variants increase disease risk. We identify the potentially affected genes in a cell type specific manner and potential drug targets already in use or with potential for re-purposing.MethodsPromoter capture Hi-C (pCHi-C) and RNA sequencing experiments were performed in a total of 15 CD4+ T cells and CD14+ monocytes samples each isolated from peripheral blood from SSc patients and healthy controls. We linked SSc-associated variants with their target genes and performed differential expression and differential interaction analyses between both cell types. Potential drug targets were identified using a protein-protein interaction model and queried against the OpenTargets database.ResultsWe linked SSc-associated loci to 39 new potential target genes, confirming 7 previously assigned genes. We highlight novel causal genes, such as CXCR5 as the most probable candidate gene for the DDX6 locus (Figure 1). We confirm some previously linked SSc genes such as IRF8, STAT4, or CD247 which interestingly showed cell type specific interactions. We also identified 15 potential drug targets already in use in other similar immune-mediated diseases that could be repurposed for SSc treatment. Furthermore, we observed that interactions are directly related with the expression of important genes implicated in cell type specific pathways.Figure 1.Promoter Capture Hi-C interactions linking the DDX6 GWAS loci with the promoter of CXCR5 in CD4+ T cells and CD14+ monocytes. CD4+ T cells show significantly stronger interactions as well as CXCR5 gene expression.ConclusionOur study reveals potential causal genes for SSc-associated loci, some of them acting in a cell type specific manner, suggesting novel drug targets and biological mechanisms that may mediate SSc pathogenesis.References[1]López-Isac E, Acosta-Herrera M, Kerick M, et al (2019) GWAS for systemic sclerosis identifies multiple risk loci and highlights fibrotic and vasculopathy pathways. Nat Commun 10:. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12760-yAcknowledgementsThis work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (grants RTI2018101332-B-100 and SAF2015-66761-P), the Cooperative Research Thematic Network (RETICS) programme (RD16/0012/0013) (RIER) from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII, Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness), the Wellcome Trust (award references 207491/Z/17/Z and 215207/Z/19/Z), Versus Arthritis (award reference 21754), and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. DGS was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through the FPI programme (SAF2015-66761-P).Disclosure of InterestsNone declared

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

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

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

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

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.

Background:Despite great advances in the diagnosis and treatment of lupus, the scientific community does not know the perception of our patients regarding the knowledge of the disease and the relationship between patients and disease. Fatigue had the greatest impact on activities of daily living, yet the majority reported receiving no support or poor support in managing it1.Objectives:Through this initiative, it is intended to investigate about the knowledge of the disease and impact of the disease on quality of life of Lupus patients. Another objective is to give visibility to the current needs of people living with lupus.Methods:It was performed a national survey with 1,263 interviews with Lupus patients who reside in Spanish territory and belonging to lupus patient associations in Spain. The survey was carried out by the Spanish Lupus Federation (FELUPUS) in collaboration with GSK company.Online interview lasting approximately 25 minutes. The collection of information was anonymously carried out from May 21 to June 30, 2020.Results:1.263 lupus patients were interviewed, 92% diagnosed with SLE and 8% with CLE. Survey sample is representative of the Lupus patient population in Spain [associated sampling error: 2.76%]. Questions about knowledge of the disease showed that 73% of patients considered that there is very little knowledge of the disease by society. Patient awareness of lupus increases as the disease progresses, so at the time of diagnosis, level of knowledge of the patient about Lupus is low in 92% of patients and at the moment of survey, 68% of patient had high knowledge. In terms of the perception of his illness, the affectation of the kidneys and heart (97%), fatigue and skin rashes (97%), are the statements that generate the greatest consensus. The survey about the relationship to disease demonstrated that 3 out of 4 patients have symptoms related to the disease, muscle and joint pain (75%) and fatigue (74%) are the symptoms that cause the greatest discomfort (Graph 1). Remarkable degree of agreement with the fact of not being able to sunbathe (78%), as well as the lack of energy (61%) and weakness in the body (60%). Flare-ups (86%), followed by fatigue (78%) and pain (77%) cause great concern. At diagnosis, 92% of patients have some organic involvement and regarding the diagnosis, at present, a greater number of patients present damage to the CNS (17%) and bones (21%). Many patients do not understand the concept of organ damage, wrongly relating it to fatigue (38%) or joint pain (47%).Graph 1.Conclusion:Among the conclusions of the survey, it stands out that society and the general population are unaware of what lupus is, while in the case of lupus patients, knowledge increases as the disease progresses. Citizen awareness campaigns about this disease are necessary, where patient associations together with health authorities have a crucial job. On the other hand, 92% of patients present organ damage at diagnosis. This means that we are arriving late to the diagnosis of many patients, which makes it necessary to promote a close collaboration between Primary Care and Hospitals, to refer patients as soon as they suspect SLE.References:[1]Sloan M, Harwood R, Sutton S, D’Cruz D, Howard P, Wincup C, Brimicombe J, Gordon C. Medically explained symptoms: a mixed methods study of diagnostic, symptom and support experiences of patients with lupus and related systemic autoimmune diseases. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2020 Feb 26;4(1):rkaa006.What worries the most to Lupus patients?Question P12. Please indicate your level of concern with the following aspects of Lupus. Percentage of patients who have scored a 4 or 5 for each item (% T2B).Acknowledgements:GSK funded the study presented in the abstract.Disclosure of Interests:Patricia Fanlo Grant/research support from: GSK funded the study presented in the abstract.