Objective COVID‐19 is a novel infectious disease with a broad spectrum of clinical severity. Patients with systemic vasculitis have an increased risk of serious infections and may be at risk of severe outcomes following COVID‐19. We undertook this study to establish the risk factors for severe COVID‐19 outcomes in these patients, including the impact of immunosuppressive therapies. Methods A multicenter cohort was developed through the participation of centers affiliated with national UK and Ireland vasculitis registries. Clinical characteristics and outcomes are described. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between potential risk factors and a severe COVID‐19 outcome, defined as a requirement for advanced oxygen therapy, a requirement for invasive ventilation, or death. Results The cohort included 65 patients with systemic vasculitis who developed COVID‐19 (median age 70 years, 49% women), of whom 25 patients (38%) experienced a severe outcome. Most patients (55 of 65 [85%]) had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV). Almost all patients required hospitalization (59 of 65 [91%]), 7 patients (11%) were admitted to intensive care, and 18 patients (28%) died. Background glucocorticoid therapy was associated with severe outcomes (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.7 [95% confidence interval 1.1–14.9]; P = 0.047), as was comorbid respiratory disease (adjusted OR 7.5 [95% confidence interval 1.9–38.2]; P = 0.006). Vasculitis disease activity and nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive therapy were not associated with severe outcomes. Conclusion In patients with systemic vasculitis, glucocorticoid use at presentation and comorbid respiratory disease were associated with severe outcomes in COVID‐19. These data can inform clinical decision‐making relating to the risk of severe COVID‐19 in this vulnerable patient group.

(131)I-MIBG is well tolerated and associates with disease stabilization or improvement in the majority of patients with metastatic phaeo/PGL. However, stronger conclusions on treatment effectiveness are limited by lack of a directly comparable 'control group' as well as an alternative 'gold standard' treatment.