BackgroundMany activity indices have been developed for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. However, they present important limitations due to the multi-organ compromise.The SLEDAI score and its different versions are widely used in daily practice and in clinical research.Diogo Jesus et al (2018) developed the SLE-DAS (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Score), that include 17 items, 4 of them continuous. SLE-DAS assesses disease activity in the 28 previous days using an online calculator, with clinical characteristics non-evaluated by SLEDAI. It showed greater precision to measure disease activity, greater sensitivity to detect clinically significant changes and better performance to predict accumulated damage than SLEDAI. It has not yet been validated in Argentina.ObjectivesTo determine the validity of the SLE-DAS score in a population of patients with SLE from Argentina.MethodsA multicenter observational study was conducted. Outpatients and hospitalized patients with SLE from 9 Argentinian centers were included between July to August 2021. Socio-demographic and disease variables were studied and SLE activity was measured by physician’s global assessment (PGA), SLEDAI 2K and SLE-DAS. The disease activity categories used for SLE-DAS were: remission ≤2.08; mild activity >2.08 to 7.10, moderate and severe activity >7.10. For SLEDAI 2K, remission was considered 0, mild activity 1 to 5, moderate 6 to 10, high 11 to 19, very high >20 points.To determine construct validity and criterion validity, SLEDAI 2K and PGA were used as the gold standard and correlation between scores was analyzed with the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficient. Sensitivity and specificity of the points that define each of the activity levels were established by ROC curves to determine the discriminative capacity of SLE-DAS.ResultsA multicenter observational study was conducted. Outpatients and hospitalized patients with SLE from 9 Argentinian centers were included between July to August 2021. Socio-demographic and disease variables were studied and SLE activity was measured by physician’s global assessment (PGA), SLEDAI 2K and SLE-DAS. The disease activity categories used for SLE-DAS were: remission ≤2.08; mild activity >2.08 to 7.10, moderate and severe activity >7.10. For SLEDAI 2K, remission was considered 0, mild activity 1 to 5, moderate 6 to 10, high 11 to 19, very high >20 points.To determine construct validity and criterion validity, SLEDAI 2K and PGA were used as the gold standard and correlation between scores was analyzed with the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficient. Sensitivity and specificity of the points that define each of the activity levels were established by ROC curves to determine the discriminative capacity of SLE-DAS.ConclusionIn this population of lupus patients from Argentina, the SLE-DAS allowed to discriminate between remission and disease activity, being a useful and practical tool.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared

Background30% of patients with SLE have APS, so clinical thromboembolic, obstetric and laboratory manifestations have been extensively studied in this population. The association between antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and non-thrombotic manifestations that are not part of the Sydney classification criteria for APS are particularly important in patients with SLE.ObjectivesTo compare the presence of non-criteria non-thrombotic manifestations of APS in patients with SLE and APS, SLE with positive aPL, SLE with negative antibodies and different outcomes such as mortality, hospitalizations and damage score.MethodsObservational, analytical and cross-sectional multicenter study. Data were obtained from the review of the RELESSAR database. We included patients ≥ 18 years with diagnosis of SLE according to modified ACR 1984 criteria. The diagnosis of APS was made according to the Sidney Criteria 2006. The sample was classified into three groups based on the presence of established APS (Group 1), aPL carrier (Group 2) and aPL negative (Group 3). Non-criteria manifestations were described and compared in the three groups. Continuous variables were compared by Student’s or Mann Whitney’s T test, and categorical variables by Chi[2]test or Fisher’s exact test. In cases where a significant difference was found between the groups, multiple post hoc comparisons were made.ResultsOne thousand two hundred and two patients were included, 1,110 (92.3%) were women. One hundred and sixty patients (13.3%) had APS (group 1), 241 (20.04%) were aPL carrier (group 2) and 801 (66.6%) were negative for aPL (group 3). Patients with APS were older than patients in group 2 [42.6 (SD 13.5) vs 38 (SD 14.2), p 0.001] and 3 [42.6 (SD 13.5) vs 39.5 (SD 14.1) p 0.004]. The disease duration was longer in patients with APS compared to patients with SLE and negative aPL (138 months (SD 113) vs 101 (SD 113) (p <0.001). Table 1 shows non-thrombotic manifestations in the three groups. A higher percentage of patients with hemolytic anemia was observed in the APS group (p=0.001) and in the aPL carrier group (p=0.018) compared to negative aPL group. Patients with APS showed a higher proportion of thrombocytopenia when compared to patients with negative aPL (p=0.039). Acute cranial/peripheral neuropathy was more frequently observed in APS group compared to aPL-negative group (p=0.006). APS group was significantly associated with hospitalizations due SLE flares, morbidity and damage index (Table 2). A higher proportion of patients in the APS group had thrombotic events compared to aPL carrier and aPL negative groups (p<0.05).Table 1.Non-criteria non-thrombotic manifestationsAPS (group 1)aPL + (group 2)aPL – (group 3)pHemolytic anemia31 (19.9%)37 (15.4%)75 (9.47%)<0.001Thrombocytopenia41 (26.6%)56 (23.4%)138 (17.6%)0.011Depression23 (14.8%)17 (7.05%)92 (11.6%)0.041Acute Neuropathy10 (6.62%)9 (3.73%)14 (1.77%)0.002Table 2.Patient prognostic measuresAPS (group 1)aPL + (group 2)aPL – (group 3)pHospitalizations96 (62.3%)119 (49.8%)401 (50.4%)0.02Charlson Score2.43 (1.92)2.01 (1.51)1.95 (1.46)0.009SLICC1.53 (1.66)1.04 (1.32)0.960 (1.34)<0.001ConclusionIn this nation-wide SLE cohort, neurological and hematological manifestations were frequently observed in patients with secondary APS. Moreover, these patients had higher rate of hospitalization, damage score and comorbidities.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

BackgroundPatients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) present greater severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population, particularly those with glomerulonephritis and who are treated with glucocorticoids. Likewise, high disease activity and some immunosuppressants have been associated with worse outcomes.ObjectivesTo describe the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with SLE in Argentina from the SAR-COVID registry and to establish factors associated with a worse outcome.MethodsObservational study. Patients diagnosed with SLE with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (RT-PCR and/or positive serology) from the SAR-COVID registry were included. Data was collected from August 2020 to March 2022. The outcome of the infection was measured using the World Health Organization - ordinal scale (WHO-OS). Severe COVID-19 was defined as an WHO-OS value ≥5. Descriptive analysis, Student’s T test, Mann Whitney U, ANOVA, Chi2 and Fisher. Multiple logistic regression.ResultsA total of 399 patients were included, 93% female, with a mean age of 40.9 years (SD 12.2), 39.6% had at least one comorbidity. At the time of infection, 54.9% were receiving glucocorticoids, 30.8% immunosuppressants, and 3.3% biological agents. SARS-CoV-2 infection was mild in most cases, while 4.6% had a severe course and/or died. The latter had comorbidities, used glucocorticoids and had antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) more frequently and higher disease activity at the time of infection. In the multivariate analysis, high blood pressure (OR 5.1, 95%CI 1.8-15.0), the diagnosis of APS (4.7, 95%CI 1.2-15.8), and the use of glucocorticoids (10 mg/day or more: OR 5.5, 95%CI 1.6-20.5) were associated with severe hospitalization and/or death from COVID-19 (WHO-EO≥5).ConclusionIn this cohort of SLE patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, most had a symptomatic course, 22.1% were hospitalized, and 5% required mechanical ventilation. Mortality was close to 3%. The diagnosis of APS, having high blood pressure, and the use of glucocorticoids were significantly associated with severe COVID-19.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsCarolina Ayelen Isnardi Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Karen Roberts Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Yohana Tissera Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Ingrid Petkovic Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Guillermo Berbotto Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carla Gobbi Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Romina Tanten Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Adriana Karina Cogo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., CECILIA ASNAL Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Andrea Rosana Baños Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Florencia Vivero Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Marcela Schmid Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Maria Alicia Lazaro Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Noelia German Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Lorena Takashima Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Julia Scafati Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Marina Laura Werner Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Luciana CASALLA Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Sabrina Solange De la vega Fernandez Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Diana Castrillon Bustamante Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Florencia Rodriguez Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Sebastián Moyano Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., María Luz Martin Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Vanesa Cosentino Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Natalia Herscovich Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Elda Rossella Tralice Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Tatiana Barbich Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Dora Lia Vasquez Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Emilio Buschiazzo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Pablo Maid Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carolina Ledesma Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Victor Yohena Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Gimena Gómez Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Rosana Quintana Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Guillermo Pons-Estel Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database.

BackgroundThe Lupus Impact Tracker (LIT) is a patient reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire. The results demonstrated their reliability in clinical practice for evaluation and follow-up.ObjectivesTo validate the LIT and the degree of correlation with other scores in SLE patients in Argentina.MethodsObservational, analytical and multicenter study. Patients older than 18 years with SLE (2019 ACR/EULAR criteria) were included. In the first stage, we evaluated the reproducibility in a period of 7 days measured by intraclass correlation (ICC) as well as the time to answer the questionnaire. In a second stage, the scores LIT, LupusQoL, PGA, SLEDAI and SLICC SDI were calculated for each patient and the Spearman correlation coefficient between scores was analyzed.ResultsInitially the LIT was performed in 10 patients. The average time to complete the questionnaire was 2,1 minutes. The mean of LIT (T0) was 57,1 (SD 24,2) and 51,5 (SD 25,5) seven days later. The ICC was 0,808 (95% CI 0,431 – 0,948). In the second stage, 100 SLE patients were included consecutively. Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the patients. The Spearman correlation coefficient between LIT/ LupusQol was 0.71, LIT/ SLEDAI was 0.13, and LIT/SLICC was 0.26 (Graphic 1).ConclusionThe median of the LIT questionnaire was 37 points. LIT demonstrated test-retest reliability and linear correlation with LupusQol. There was no correlation with SLE activity. LIT is a practical, quick and easy tool to evaluate he patient’s perspective in relation to the disease in daily practice.Reference[1] Jolly M. Spanish LupusPRO: cross-cultural validation study for lupus. Lupus. 2013 Apr;22(5):431-6. doi: 10.1177/0961203313476359. PMID: 23554032.VariableCategoryTotalLIT MedianQ1Q3p-valueAge≤40 years50 (50.0)37.5013.1250.000.3941>40 years50 (50.0)36.2520.056.8SexFemale91 (91.0)37.5020.0051.250.9232Male9 (9.00)32.5012.5065.00Attention of the patientOutpatient97 (97.0)37.5020.0052.500.9436Hospitalized3 (3.00)45.0028.7546.25GRAFFAR scale(socioeconomic level)I Upper class4 (4.0)16.2510.0029.380.0610II Upper middle class10 (10.0)32.5015.0037.50III Middle class32 (32.0)26.2510.0050.00IV Middle-low class43 (43.0)45.0030.0057.50V Lower class11 (11.0)37.5028.7554.75Physician global assessment (PGA)Mild41 (41.0%)32.5017.5055.000.1096Moderate18 (18.0)46.2538.1355.63Normal38 (38.0)28.7512.1350.00Severe3 (3.0)45.0041.2547.50SLEDAIMild or moderate activity34 (34.0)31.2518.1347.500.1386Severe activity9 (9.0)47.5045.0050.00Without activity57 (57.0)37.5015.0052.50Graphic 1.Spearman correlation coefficientAcknowledgementsTo Karen Roberts who did the statistical analysis and the UNISAR for the support.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

BackgroundHigh disease activity, treatment with glucocorticoids (GC) and rituximab (RTX), have been related to worse outcomes of COVID-19.ObjectivesTo assess the clinical characteristics and severity of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) included in the SAR-COVID registry and to identify factors associated with poor outcomes.MethodsSAR-COVID is a national, longitudinal and observational registry. Patients of ≥18 years old, with diagnosis of RA (ACR-EULAR criteria 2010) who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (RT-PCR or positive serology) were included between 13-8-20 and 31-7-21. Sociodemographic and clinical data, comorbidities, disease activity and treatment at the moment of the SARS-CoV-2 infection were collected. Additionally, infection symptoms, complications, medical interventions and treatments for COVID-19 were registered. Infection severity was assessed using the WHO-ordinal scale (WHO-OS)1. A cut-off value of ≥5 identified patients with severe COVID-19 and those who died.Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics. Chi2 or Fischer test, Student T test or Mann-Whitney and Kruskal Wallis or ANOVA, as appropriate. Multiple logistic regression model.ResultsA total of 801 patients were included, with a mean age of 53.1 ± 12.9 years, most of them were female (84.5%) and the median (m) disease duration was 8 years (IQR 4-14). One third were in remission and 46.4% had comorbidities, being the most frequent, hypertension (26.9 %), dyslipidemia (13.5 %), obesity (13.4 %) and diabetes (8.9%). Moreover, 3.2% had interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with RA. At SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, 42.5% were receiving glucocorticoids (GC), 73.9% conventional (c) disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), 24% biologic (b) DMARD and 9.1% targeted synthetic (ts) DMARD. Among bDMARD, the most frequently used were TNF inhibitors (17%), followed by abatacept (2.8%), IL-6 inhibitors (2.4%) and rituximab (RTX) (2.1%). During the SARS-CoV-2 infection, 95.8% had symptoms, 27% required hospitalization, 7.9% presented complications and 4.4% died due to COVID-19. Severe disease and death (WHO-OS≥5) was present in 7.5% of the patients. They were older (62.9±12.5 vs 52.2±12.7, p<0.001), and they had more frequently ILD (18.5% vs 2%, p<0.001), comorbidities (82.5% vs 43.7%, p<0.001), ≥2 comorbidities (60.3% vs 25.8%, p<0.001), treatment with GC (61% vs 40.7%, p=0.04) and RTX (8.3% vs 1.6%, p=0.007). Conversely, the use of cDMARD and TNF inhibitors was more frequent in patients with WHO-OS<5, nevertheless this difference was not significant. Disease activity was comparable between groups. In multivariable analysis, older age, the presence of diabetes, ILD, the use of GC and RTX were significantly associated with WHO-OS≥5 (Figure 1). Furthermore, older age (65.7±10.8 vs 52.4±12.8, p<0.001), the presence of comorbidities (87.9% vs 44.7%, p<0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.9% vs 5.2%, p=0.002), diabetes (30.3% vs 7.9%, p<0.001), hypertension (57.6% vs 25.6%, p<0.001), cardiovascular disease (15.6% vs 3.2%, p=0.005), cancer (9.1% vs 1.3%, p=0.001), ILD (23.3% vs 2.4%, p<0.001) and the use of GC (61.8% vs 41.4%, p=0.02) were associated with mortality. Older age [OR 1.1 IC95% 1.06-1.13] and the use of GC 5-10 mg/day [OR 4.6 IC95% 1.8-11.6] remained significantly associated with death due to COVID-19.Figure 1.Factors associated with severe disease and death due to COVID-19 (WHO-OS≥5) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Multivariable analysis. (ref.: reference; PDN: prednisone; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval)ConclusionTreatment with RTX and GC, as well as older age, the presence of diabetes and ILD were associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in this national cohort of patients with RA. Older patients and those taking GC had a higher mortality rate.References[1]World Health Organization coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Therapeutic Trial Synopsis Draft 2020.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared