Search

The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC), American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and the Lupus Foundation of America are developing a revised systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) damage index (the SLICC/ACR Damage Index [SDI]). Shifts in the concept of damage in SLE have occurred with new insights into disease manifestations, diagnostics, and therapy. We evaluated contemporary constructs in SLE damage to inform development of the revised SDI.We conducted a 3-part qualitative study of international SLE experts. Facilitated small groups evaluated the construct underlying the concept of damage in SLE. A consensus meeting using nominal group technique was conducted to achieve agreement on aspects of the conceptual framework and scope of the revised damage index. The framework was finally reviewed and agreed upon by the entire group.Fifty participants from 13 countries were included. The 8 thematic clusters underlying the construct of SLE damage were purpose, items, weighting, reversibility, impact, time frame, attribution, and perspective. The revised SDI will be a discriminative index to measure morbidity in SLE, independent of activity or impact on the patient, and should be related to mortality. The SDI is primarily intended for research purposes and should take a life-course approach. Damage can occur before a diagnosis of SLE but should be attributable to SLE. Damage to an organ is irreversible, but the functional consequences on that organ may improve over time through physiological adaptation or treatment.We identified shifts in the paradigm of SLE damage and developed a unifying conceptual framework. These data form the groundwork for the next phases of SDI development.

Background/Aims Gangrene is a well-recognised complication of diabetes, peripheral arterial disease, frostbite and meningococcal disease amongst other conditions but is rare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE]. Most reports describe individual patients and the prevalence in cohorts is very scarce. In 2008, our group reported five patients who had developed digital gangrene and two patients with “near gangrene”. We reviewed all the SLE patients seen in our lupus clinic between January 1978 and June 2022.The main goal was to address the prevalence and identify the possible trigger factors, aiming to find common clinical and serological features. We have also reviewed the acute and long-term management of gangrene in these patients as well as their long-term outcome. Methods We reviewed 820 patients with SLE attending the SLE Clinic in our UK tertiary referral center, followed up over 44 years, assessing demographics, clinical and serological features, treatment in the acute phase, outcome and long-term management. Results Eight out of 820 patients (0.97%) have developed gangrene. The age of onset of disease ranged from 12 to 26 years (mean 17.5 years, SD 4.609). The first episode of gangrene ranged from between presentation to 27 years after SLE onset, with a mean duration of SLE at the onset of the gangrene of 15.5 years (SD 11.711). All had active SLE at the time of critical peripheral ischaemia and anti-phospholipid (PL) antibodies were present in five out of the eight reported patients. The acute treatment was intravenous (IV) iloprost infusions with antiphospholipid-positive patients being anti-coagulated, most staying on long term anticoagulation therapy. The possible identified triggers (such as infection and cancer) were treated accordingly. Two patients did not respond to the initial treatment and needed further immunosuppression. All of these patients suffered digit loss. Conclusion Gangrene is a rare complication of SLE in patients with active disease but potentially able to cause severe damage. Anti-phospholipid antibodies are overrepresented in these patients but infection and cancer are other possible contributors. Anticoagulation therapy, steroids and iloprost are the first line therapy but in non-responders further immunosuppression may be needed to stop the evolution of gangrene. Disclosure J. Rua: None. D. Isenberg: Honoraria; Servier, Anges, Astrazeneca, UCB, Eli Lilly.

ObjectivesTo evaluate systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares following hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) reduction or discontinuation versus HCQ maintenance.MethodsWe analysed prospective data from the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) cohort, enrolled from 33 sites within 15 months of SLE diagnosis and followed annually (1999–2019). We evaluated person-time contributed while on the initial HCQ dose (‘maintenance’), comparing this with person-time contributed after a first dose reduction, and after a first HCQ discontinuation. We estimated time to first flare, defined as either subsequent need for therapy augmentation, increase of ≥4 points in the SLE Disease Activity Index-2000, or hospitalisation for SLE. We estimated adjusted HRs (aHRs) with 95% CIs associated with reducing/discontinuing HCQ (vs maintenance). We also conducted separate multivariable hazard regressions in each HCQ subcohort to identify factors associated with flare.ResultsWe studied 1460 (90% female) patients initiating HCQ. aHRs for first SLE flare were 1.20 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.38) and 1.56 (95% CI 1.31 to 1.86) for the HCQ reduction and discontinuation groups, respectively, versus HCQ maintenance. Patients with low educational level were at particular risk of flaring after HCQ discontinuation (aHR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.87). Prednisone use at time-zero was associated with over 1.5-fold increase in flare risk in all HCQ subcohorts.ConclusionsSLE flare risk was higher after HCQ taper/discontinuation versus HCQ maintenance. Decisions to maintain, reduce or stop HCQ may affect specific subgroups differently, including those on prednisone and/or with low education. Further study of special groups (eg, seniors) may be helpful.

ObjectivesA perception derived from cross-sectional studies of small systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) cohorts is that there is a marked discrepancy between antinuclear antibody (ANA) assays, which impacts on clinicians’ approach to diagnosis and follow-up. We compared three ANA assays in a longitudinal analysis of a large international incident SLE cohort retested regularly and followed for 5 years.MethodsDemographic, clinical and serological data was from 805 SLE patients at enrolment, year 3 and 5. Two HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence assays (IFA1, IFA2), an ANA ELISA, and SLE-related autoantibodies were performed in one laboratory. Frequencies of positivity, titres or absorbance units (AU), and IFA patterns were compared using McNemar, Wilcoxon and kappa statistics, respectively.ResultsAt enrolment, ANA positivity (≥1:80) was 96.1% by IFA1 (median titre 1:1280 (IQR 1:640–1:5120)), 98.3% by IFA2 (1:2560 (IQR 1:640–1:5120)) and 96.6% by ELISA (176.3 AU (IQR 106.4 AU–203.5 AU)). At least one ANA assay was positive for 99.6% of patients at enrolment. At year 5, ANA positivity by IFAs (IFA1 95.2%; IFA2 98.9%) remained high, while there was a decrease in ELISA positivity (91.3%, p91% agreement in ANA positivity at all time points and ≥71% agreement in IFA patterns between IFA1 and IFA2.ConclusionIn recent-onset SLE, three ANA assays demonstrated commutability with a high proportion of positivity and titres or AU. However, over 5 years follow-up, there was modest variation in ANA assay performance. In clinical situations where the SLE diagnosis is being considered, a negative test by either the ELISA or HEp-2 IFA may require reflex testing.

Objectives This review addresses the question of what happens long-term to those systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients who develop gangrene. It also seeks to find common clinical and serological features, risk factors and triggers and how best to manage this challenging complication. Methods We reviewed 850 patients with SLE attending a UK tertiary referral center, followed up over 44 years, assessing their demographics, clinical and serological features, treatment in the acute phase, their long-term outcome and long-term management. Results Ten out of 850 patients (1.2%) developed gangrene; the mean age of onset was 17 years (range 12–26 years) Eight out of 10 patients had a single episode of gangrene. One of the other two was not willing to have anticoagulation. The first episode of gangrene ranged from presentation to 32 years after SLE onset, mean duration of SLE at the onset of the gangrene was 18.5 years SD 11.5 years. Anti-phospholipid (PL) antibodies were over-represented in the patients with gangrene. All had active SLE at the time the gangrene developed. All patients were treated with intravenous (IV) iloprost infusions, and the antiphospholipid-antibody positive patients were anti-coagulated, most staying on long term anticoagulation. Underlying possible triggers were treated appropriately. Two patients who did not respond to the initial treatment needed further immunosuppression. All patients suffered digit loss. Conclusion Although rare, gangrene is a sinister, potentially late developing complication of SLE, it rarely recurs. It is associated with anti-phospholipid antibodies, active disease, and other possible triggers such as infection and cancer. Anticoagulation therapy, steroids and iloprost, and further immunosuppression may be needed to stop the evolution of gangrene.

The Physician Global Assessment International Standardisation COnsensus in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (PISCOS) study aimed to obtain an evidence-based and expert-based consensus standardisation of the Physician Global Assessment (PGA) scoring of disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). An international panel of 79 SLE experts participated in a three-round Delphi consensus process, in which 41 statements related to the PGA in SLE were rated, using a 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree) numerical rating scale. Statements with agreement of 75% or greater were selected and further validated by the expert panel. Consensus was reached on 27 statements, grouped in 14 recommendations, for the use of the PGA in SLE, design of the PGA scale, practical considerations for PGA scoring, and the relationship between PGA values and levels of disease activity. Among these recommendations, the expert panel agreed that the PGA should consist of a 0–3 visual analogue scale for measuring disease activity in patients with SLE in the preceding month. The PGA is intended to rate the overall disease activity, taking into account the severity of active manifestations and clinical laboratory results, but excluding organ damage, serology, and subjective findings unrelated to disease activity. The PGA scale ranges from “no disease activity” (0) to the “most severe disease activity” (3) and incorporates the values 1 and 2 as inner markers to categorise disease activity as mild (≥0·5 to 1), moderate (>1 and ≤2) and severe (>2 to 3). Only experienced physicians can rate the PGA, and it should be preferably scored by the same rater at each visit. The PISCOS results will allow for increased homogeneity and reliability of PGA ratings in routine clinical practice, definitions of remission and low disease activity, and future SLE trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Atacicept is a dual BLyS/APRIL inhibitor. APRIL-SLE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study, which randomized moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients to atacicept 75 mg, atacicept 150 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects who experienced a new flare during the 52-week treatment period. In total, 111 patients in the placebo group, 112 patients in the atacicept 75 mg group and 62 patients in the atacicept 150 mg group completed 52 weeks of treatment. Patients with severe renal disease were excluded, while patients with proteinuria and mild–moderate chronic kidney disease, as assessed by KDIGO criteria, were eligible. The effect of atacicept on measures of renal function in these patients has not previously been reported. METHOD The study excluded moderate to severe glomerulonephritis, as defined by either of the following: urinary protein/creatinine ratio > 1 mg/mg and/or hematuria or a significant renal impairment as defined by glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 50 mL/min/1.73 m2. Urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) and GFR were measured at baseline, week 2, and then every 4 weeks until week 52. RESULTS In the APRIL-SLE study, the analysis for GFR and UPCR are of all patients (62–111 per group) with up to 15% of patients having a history of SLE-related renal disease. GFR time course showed stability for the atacicept groups compared to a 4.3% decline in the placebo group at week 52 from baseline (figure and table). Furthermore, reductions in UPCR from baseline at week 52 were observed in the atacicept groups compared to an increase in the placebo group. CONCLUSION In this phase 2 APRIL-SLE study, analysis of renal data suggests potential for improved renal function with atacicept treatment in SLE renal disease.

Background/Aims A major limitation of biologic therapy is formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADA). We previously demonstrated that ADA to rituximab are more prevalent in patients undergoing treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis, and predict subsequent infusion reactions. However, little is known regarding the long-term dynamics of ADA to rituximab. In this study we evaluated the longitudinal impact of ADA positivity in terms of drug kinetics, treatment response and neutralising capacity in SLE. Methods Patients with SLE undergoing treatment with rituximab were recruited to this study (n = 35). Serum samples were collected at the following intervals post-treatment; 1-3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 36 months (n = 114). Clinical and laboratory data was collected pre-treatment and at each time point. ADA were detected using an electrochemiluminescent immunoassay. Serum rituximab levels were measured via ELISA. A complement dependent cytotoxic assay was used to determine neutralising capability of ADA in a subgroup of positive samples (n = 38). Results ADA were found to be persistently positive over the 36-month follow-up period in 64.3% of patients. There was no significant difference in baseline disease activity (BILAG / SLEDAI-2K) between those who were subsequently ADA positive vs negative. ADA positive patients were younger at diagnosis compared with ADA negative (mean 22.50 ± 9.10 vs 37.29 ± 11.31 years, p = 0.002). Multivariate logistic regression found older age at diagnosis was associated with reduced incidence of persistent ADA with a 22% decrease in risk for each addition year after diagnosis (p = 0.03). ADA positive patients had a significantly lower C3 level at baseline (mean 0.61 ± 0.23 vs 0.87 ± 0.30, p = 0.026), which remained lower at each subsequent time point post-treatment up to 12 months. ADA titres peaked earlier and remained higher in those who had been treated with rituximab previously compared with those who were rituximab naive (median 132 AU/ml vs 7 AU/ml at 1-3 months). At 6 months post-treatment, patients with detectable ADA had a significantly lower circulating drug level than ADA negative (p = 0.0018). In terms of clinical response, ADA positive patients had an initial significant improvement in disease activity (SLEDAI-2K) by 3 months (p < 0.001). However, response was not maintained at 12 months. In comparison, ADA-negative patients showed a significant improvement in SLEDAI-2K at 6 months and this was maintained across the 36-month follow-up period. BILAG defined relapse within 12 months of treatment was only seen in ADA positive patients. Finally, all ADA positive samples were found to neutralise rituximab in vitro. Conclusion ADA to rituximab were common and persisted over the 36 month period of this study. ADA associated with earlier drug elimination, increased relapse rates and demonstrated neutralising capacity suggesting that ADA could be a significant limitation to sustained response to treatment. Disclosure C. Wincup: Grants/research support; Lupus UK, Versus Arthritis, British Society for Rheumatology. N. Dunn: None. C. Ruetsch-Chelli: None. A. Manouchehrinia: None. N. Kharlamova: None. M. Naja: None. B. Seitz-Polski: None. D. Isenberg: None. A. Fogdell-Hahn: None. C. Ciurtin: None. E. Jury: None.

Objectives: This study aimed to demonstrate how to estimate the value of health gain after patients with a multisystem disease achieve a condition-specific composite response endpoint. Methods: Data from patients treated in routine practice with an exemplar multisystem disease (systemic lupus erythematosus) were extracted from a national register (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register). Two bespoke composite response endpoints (Major Clinical Response and Improvement) were developed in advance of this study. Difference-in-differences regression compared health utility values (3-level version of EQ-5D; UK tariff) over 6 months for responders and nonresponders. Bootstrapped regression estimated the incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), probability of QALY gain after achieving the response criteria, and population monetary benefit of response. Results: Within the sample (n = 171), 18.2% achieved Major Clinical Response and 49.1% achieved Improvement at 6 months. Incremental health utility values were 0.0923 for Major Clinical Response and 0.0454 for Improvement. Expected incremental QALY gain at 6 months was 0.020 for Major Clinical Response and 0.012 for Improvement. Probability of QALY gain after achieving the response criteria was 77.6% for Major Clinical Response and 72.7% for Improvement. Population monetary benefit of response was £1 106 458 for Major Clinical Response and £649 134 for Improvement. Conclusions: Bespoke composite response endpoints are becoming more common to measure treatment response for multisystem diseases in trials and observational studies. Health technology assessment agencies face a growing challenge to establish whether these endpoints correspond with improved health gain. Health utility values can generate this evidence to enhance the usefulness of composite response endpoints for health technology assessment, decision making, and economic evaluation.

Background: Acquired activated protein C resistance (APCr) has been identified in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Objective: To assess agreement between the ST-Genesia® and CAT analysers in identifying APCr prevalence in APS/SLE patients, using three thrombin generation (TG) methods. Methods: APCr was assessed with the ST-Genesia using STG-ThromboScreen and with the CAT using recombinant human activated protein C and Protac® in 105 APS, 53 SLE patients and 36 thrombotic controls. Agreement was expressed in % and by Cohen’s kappa coefficient. Results: APCr values were consistently lower with the ST-Genesia® compared to the CAT, using either method, in both APS and SLE patients. Agreement between the two analysers in identifying APS and SLE patients with APCr was poor (≤65.9%, ≤0.20) or fair (≤68.5%, ≥0.29), regardless of TG method, respectively; no agreement was observed in thrombotic controls. APCr with both the ST Genesia and the CAT using Protac®, but not the CAT using rhAPC, was significantly greater in triple antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) APS patients compared to double/single aPL patients (p < 0.04) and in thrombotic SLE patients compared to non-thrombotic SLE patients (p < 0.05). Notably, the ST-Genesia®, unlike the CAT, with either method, identified significantly greater APCr in pregnancy morbidity (median, confidence intervals; 36.9%, 21.9–49.0%) compared to thrombotic (45.7%, 39.6–55.5%) APS patients (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Despite the broadly similar methodology used by CAT and ST-Genesia®, agreement in APCr was poor/fair, with results not being interchangeable. This may reflect differences in the TG method, use of different reagents, and analyser data handling.

Funder: Lupus Foundation of America, Inc, Objective: In systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), disease activity and glucocorticoid (GC) exposure are known to contribute to irreversible organ damage. We aimed to examine the association between GC exposure and organ damage occurrence. Methods: We conducted a literature search (PubMed (Medline), Embase and Cochrane January 1966���October 2021). We identified original longitudinal observational studies reporting GC exposure as the proportion of users and/or GC use with dose information as well as the occurrence of new major organ damage as defined in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index. Meta-regression analyses were performed. Reviews, case-reports and studies with

Objectives To investigate predictors of sustained complete remission (CR) for 3 and 5 years, minimum. Methods Retrospective observational study from January 1978 to December 2019, including systemic lupus erythmatosus (SLE) patients who attended the Lupus Clinic in a tertiary hospital, for at least 3 years. We used the BILAG score and serological profile to classify patients into CR, serologically active clinically quiescent (SACQ) and serological remission (SR). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to investigate predictors of CR and Kaplan–Meier curves were obtained. Results We included 564 patients; 15% achieved CR, 7% SACQ and 15% SR. Some 63% attained no remission. In the CR group, 73% sustained the remission for 5 years or more. Patients who did not reach any kind of sustained remission died significantly earlier (P 32 years) [HR 1.92 (1.24–2.97); P = 0.003]; absence of renal involvement [HR 2.55 (1.39–4.67); P = 0.002]; and of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) [HR 4.92 (1.55–15.59); P = 0.007]. Conclusion Patients not achieving any kind of sustained remission have a higher risk of early mortality. White ethnicity, older age at diagnosis, absence of renal involvement and of APS were significantly associated with CR. Predictors for sustained CR do not change whether a 3-year or 5-year period is applied.

ObjectiveTo evaluate hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)-related retinal toxicity in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) inception cohort.MethodsData were collected at annual study visits between 1999 and 2019. We followed patients with incident SLE from first visit on HCQ (time zero) up to time of retinal toxicity (outcome), death, loss-to-follow-up or end of study. Potential retinal toxicity was identified from SLICC Damage Index scores; cases were confirmed with chart review. Using cumulative HCQ duration as the time axis, we constructed univariate Cox regression models to assess if covariates (ie, HCQ daily dose/kg, sex, race/ethnicity, age at SLE onset, education, body mass index, renal damage, chloroquine use) were associated with HCQ-related retinal toxicity.ResultsWe studied 1460 patients (89% female, 52% white). Retinal toxicity was confirmed in 11 patients (incidence 1.0 per 1000 person-years, 0.8% overall). Average cumulative time on HCQ in those with retinal toxicity was 7.4 (SD 3.2) years; the first case was detected 4 years after HCQ initiation. Risk of retinal toxicity was numerically higher in older patients at SLE diagnosis (univariate HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09).ConclusionsThis is the first assessment of HCQ and retinal disease in incident SLE. We did not see any cases of retinopathy within the first 4 years of HCQ. Cumulative HCQ may be associated with increased risk. Ophthalmology monitoring (and formal assessment of cases of potential toxicity, by a retinal specialist) remains important, especially in patients on HCQ for 10+ years, those needing higher doses and those of older age at SLE diagnosis.

Background Central nervous system (CNS) involvement accounts for over 90% of neuropsychiatric (NP) events compared to involvement of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) which accounts for most of the other events. Although there is a large body of work on CNS disease in SLE patients, involvement of the PNS is less well established. Objectives In a multi-ethnic/racial, prospective SLE inception cohort, to determine the clinical characteristics, associations and outcomes in different types of peripheral nervous system (PNS) disease. Methods Patients were evaluated annually for 19 NP events including seven types of PNS disease. Standardized case definitions and attribution models for each type of PNS event were used. SLE disease activity (SLEDAI-2K), organ damage (SLICC/ACR damage index), autoantibodies, patient (SF-36) and physician (Likert score) assessment of outcome were measured. Time to event and linear regressions were used as appropriate. Results Of 1,827 SLE patients, 88.8% were female, 48.8% Caucasian. The mean±SD age was 35.1±13.3 years, disease duration at enrollment 5.6±4.2 months and follow-up 7.6±4.6 years. There were 161 PNS events in 139/1,827 (7.6%) patients. The predominant events were peripheral neuropathy [66/161 (41.0%)], mononeuropathy [44/161 (27.3%)] and cranial neuropathy [39/161 (24.2%)] and the majority were attributed to SLE. Multivariate Cox regressions suggested longer time to resolution in patients with prior history of neuropathy, older age at SLE diagnosis, higher SLEDAI-2K scores, and for peripheral neuropathy versus other neuropathies. Neuropathy was associated with significantly lower SF-36 physical and mental component summary scores versus patients without NP events. By physician assessment, the majority of neuropathies resolved or improved over time and this was associated with improvements in SF-36 summary scores for peripheral neuropathy and mononeuropathy. Conclusion PNS disease is an important component of total NPSLE and has a significant negative impact on health related quality of life. The outcome is favourable for most patients, but several factors associated with longer time to resolution were identified. Disclosure of Interests John Hanly Consultant for: Eli Lilly Canada, Qiuju Li: None declared, Li Su: None declared, Murray B Urowitz Grant/research support from: GSK, Consultant for: BMS, Celgene, GSK, Lilly, UCB, Caroline Gordon Grant/research support from: Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust have received funding from UCB to support research work done by my research group that was unrelated to any pharmaceutical product or clinical trial., Consultant for: I have provided consultancy advice and taken part in scientific advisory boards on the design and analysis of clinical trials and the management of lupus for GSK, EMD Serono and UCB. I have taken part in adjudication and safety monitoring committees for BMS., Speakers bureau: I have been paid by UCB for speaking at meetings., Sang-Cheol Bae: None declared, Juanita Romero-Diaz: None declared, Jorge Sanchez-Guerrero: None declared, Sasha Bernatsky: None declared, Ann E Clarke: None declared, Daniel J Wallace: None declared, David Isenberg: None declared, Anisur Rahman: None declared, Joan T Merrill Grant/research support from: Genentech, UCB, GSK, EMD Serono, Pfizer, Celgene, Exagen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medimmune/Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Amgen, Xencor, Neovacs, Consultant for: Genentech, UCB, GSK, EMD Serono, Pfizer, RemeGen, Celgene, Exagen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medimmune/Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Immupharma, Amgen, Janssen, Sanofi, Neovacs, Anthera, Speakers bureau: UCB, GSK, EMD Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medimmune/Astra Zeneca, Janssen, Paul Fortin: None declared, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Ian N. Bruce Grant/research support from: Genzyme Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Consultant for: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO Pharma, MedImmune, Merck Serono, Speakers bureau: GlaxoSmithKline, UCB Pharma, Michelle A Petri Shareholder of: Pfizer, Merck, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Exagen, Consultant for: Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck EMD Serono, Janssen, Amgen, Novartis, Quintiles, Exagen, Inova Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Blackrock, Glenmark, UCB, and the Annenberg Center for Health Sciences, Ellen M Ginzler: None declared, M.A. Dooley: None declared, Kristjan Steinsson: None declared, Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman: None declared, Asad A Zoma: None declared, Susan Manzi: None declared, Ola Nived: None declared, Andreas Jonsen: None declared, Munther Khamashta: None declared, Graciela S Alarcon: None declared, Ronald F van Vollenhoven: None declared, Elisabet Svenungsson: None declared, Cynthia Aranow: None declared, Meggan Mackay: None declared, Guillermo Ruiz-Irastorza: None declared, Manuel Ramos-Casals: None declared, S. Sam Lim: None declared, Murat Inanc: None declared, Kenneth C Kalunian: None declared, Soren Jacobsen: None declared, Christine Peschken Consultant for: AstraZeneca, Diane L Kamen: None declared, Anca Askanase: None declared, Chris Theriault: None declared, Vernon Farewell: None declared

Objectives To analyse how the age at diagnosis modifies the phenotype of primary Sjogren syndrome (SS) Methods The Big Data Sjogren Project was formed in 2014 to take a “high-definition” picture of the main features of primary SS at diagnosis by merging international SS databases. By January 2019, the database included 11,420 patients from 24 countries of the 5 continents. Results Women (52.7 vs 54.6 yrs in men, p Patients with positive immunological markers had a younger diagnostic age, except for cryoglobulins (p Patients without systemic activity (ESSDAI score = 0) were diagnosed at an older age (55.5 vs 52.1 yrs in those with systemic activity, p Conclusion Age at diagnosis plays a key role in the glandular and systemic phenotype expressed by primary SjS patients at the time of diagnosis. Disclosure of Interests: Soledad Retamozo: None declared, Nihan Acar-Denizli: None declared, Wan Fai Ng: None declared, Ildiko Fanny Horvath: None declared, Astrid Rasmussen: None declared, Raphaele Seror Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant for: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Roche, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Xiaomei Li: None declared, Chiara Baldini: None declared, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant for: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB Pharma, Consultant for: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, UCB, Sanofi-Genzyme, Pfizer, Pulukool Sandhya: None declared, Luca Quartuccio: None declared, Roberta Priori: None declared, Gabriela Hernandez-Molina: None declared, Berkan Armagan: None declared, Aike A. Kruize: None declared, Seung-Ki Kwok: None declared, Marika Kvarnstrom: None declared, Sonja Praprotnik: None declared, Damien Sene: None declared, Elena Bartoloni Bocci: None declared, Roser Solans-Laque: None declared, Maureen Rischmueller Consultant for: Abbvie, Bristol-Meyer-Squibb, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hospira, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Thomas Mandl: None declared, Yasunori Suzuki: None declared, David Isenberg: None declared, Valeria Valim: None declared, Agata Sebastian: None declared, Gunnel Nordmark: None declared, Hendrika Bootsma: None declared, Hideki Nakamura: None declared, Roberto Giacomelli Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Actelion, Speakers bureau: Actelion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Abbvie, Pfizer, Sobi, Roche, Valerie Devauchelle-Pensec Grant/research support from: Roche-Chugai, Speakers bureau: MSD, BMS, UCB, Roche, Benedikt Hofauer Consultant for: Consultant for Galvani Bioelectronics for the area of sleep disorders., Michele Bombardieri Grant/research support from: Celgene, Consultant for: Medimmune, Virginia Fernandes Moca Trevisani: None declared, Daniel Hammenfors: None declared, Sandra Pasoto: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Fabiola Atzeni: None declared, Jacques Morel: None declared, Cristina Vollenveider: None declared, Sandra Consani-Fernandez: None declared, Xavier Mariette Grant/research support from: Servier, Consultant for: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Manuel Ramos-Casals: None declared, Pilar Brito-Zeron: None declared