Efficacy And Safety of Canakinumab As A Second-Line Biologic After Tocilizumab Treatment Failure in Children With Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Single-Center Cohort Study Using Routinely Collected Health Data

Background: A significant number of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) patients discontinue biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) due to lack of efficacy or safety concerns. Studies of biologic therapy switch regimens in sJIA are required.Methods: Patients with sJIA who switched from tocilizumab (due to lack of efficacy or safety) to canakinumab (4 mg/kg every 4 weeks) and were hospitalized at the rheumatology department from August 2012 to July 2020 were included. Primary efficacy outcomes were 30% or greater improvement based on the pediatric criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR30), achievement of inactive disease (JADAS‑71 =0) and clinical remission (ACR sJIA clinical inactive disease criteria). Follow-up was 12 months or the closest time point (not less than 6 and not more than 18 months). Data were extracted from outpatient medical records.Results: During the study period, 46 patients with sJIA switched from tocilizumab to canakinumab. Median age at canakinumab initiation was 8.2 (interquartile range 4.0; 12.9) years, and median sJIA duration was 1.8 (0.8; 5.8) years; 37 (80%) patients received at least one non-biologic DMARD (oral corticosteroids, methotrexate and/or cyclosporine A). Study outcomes were followed up in 45 patients (one patient did not attend the follow-up for an unknown reason); median follow-up was 359 (282; 404) days. During the follow-up, canakinumab was discontinued in one patient (due to tuberculosis detection) and the dose was reduced or the injection interval increased in four (9%) patients. In total, 27 (60%) patients continued to receive at least one non-biologic DMARD. Improvement according to the ACR30 criteria was achieved in 43 patients (96%; 95% confidence interval, 85–99), inactive disease in 42 (93%; 82–98), and clinical remission in 37 (82%; 69‑91); after adjustment for actual time-at-risk, the rates were 83, 85 and 73 events per 100 person-years, respectively. During follow-up, 23 adverse events (most frequently infections) were reported in 19/45 (42%) patients; 5/45 (11%) patients developed macrophage activation syndrome, with a favorable outcome in all cases.Conclusions: Short-term (about 12 months) canakinumab therapy was found to be potentially effective as second-line biologic therapy after discontinuation of tocilizumab in patients with sJIA. Trial registration: CACZ885G2301E1 (G2301; NCT00891046 registered on April 29, 2009) and CACZ885G2306 (G2306; NCT02296424 registered on November 20, 2014).

Trajectories of Adherence to Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Tuscan Administrative Databases: The Pathfinder Study

Scanty information on clustering longitudinal real-world data is available in the medical literature about the adherence implementation phase in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To identify and characterize trajectories by analyzing the implementation phase of adherence to biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs), we conducted a retrospective cohort drug-utilization study using Tuscan administrative databases. RA patients were identified by a validated algorithm, including the first biologic DMARD supply from 2010 to 2015, RA specialist visit in the year before or after the first supply date and RA diagnosis in the five years before or in the year after the first supply date. We observed users for three years or until death, neoplasia, or pregnancy. We evaluated adherence quarterly through the Medication Possession Ratio. Firstly, we identified adherence trajectories and described the baseline characteristics; then, we focused on the trajectory most populated to distinguish the related sub-trajectories. We identified 952 first ever-biologic DMARD users in RA (712 females, mean age 52.7 years old, standard deviation 18.8). The biologic DMARD mostly supplied was etanercept (387 users) followed by adalimumab (233). Among 935 users with at least 3 adherence values, we identified 49 fully-adherent users, 829 continuous users, and 57 early-discontinuing users. Significant differences were observed among the index drugs. After focusing on the continuous users, three sub-trajectories were identified: continuous-steady users (556), continuous-alternate users (207), and continuous-declining users (66). No relevant differences emerged at the baseline. The majority of first ever-biologic DMARD users showed a continuous adherence behavior in RA. The role of adherence potential predictors and the association with effectiveness and safety outcomes should be explored by further studies.

Real-World Data from a Multi-Center Study: Insights to Psoriatic Arthritis Care

Introduction: Real-world data indicate disparities in biologic access across Europe. Objectives: To describe the national structure of PsA care in Poland, with a particular focus on the population of inadequate responders (IRs) and difficulties associated with biologic therapy access. Methods: A pool of rheumatologic and dermatologic care centers was created based on National Health Fund contract lists (n = 841), from which 29 rheumatologic and 10 dermatologic centers were sampled randomly and successfully met the inclusion criterium. Additionally, 33 tertiary care centers were recruited. For successful center recruitment, one provider had to recruit at least one patient that met the criteria for one of the four pre-defined clinical subgroups, in which all patients had to have active PsA and IR status to at least 2 conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs (csDMARDs). Self-assessment questionnaires were distributed among physicians and their patients. Results: Barriers to biologic DMARD (bDMARD) treatment are complex and include stringency of reimbursement criteria, health care system, logistic/organizational, and personal choice factors. For patients who are currently bDMARD users, the median waiting time from the visit, at which the reimbursement procedure was initiated, to the first day of bDMARD admission was 9 weeks (range 2–212; 32% < 4 weeks, 29% 5–12 weeks, 26% 13–28 weeks, 13% with >28 weeks delay). Out of all inadequate responder groups, bDMARD users are the only group with “good” therapeutic situation and satisfaction with therapy. Patient satisfaction with therapy is not always concordant with physician assessment of therapeutic status. Conclusions: Despite the fact that over a decade has passed since the introduction of biologic agents, in medium welfare countries such as Poland, considerable healthcare system barriers to biologic access are present. Out of different IR populations, patient satisfaction with treatment is often discordant with physician assessment of disease status.

Patterns of etanercept use in juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry

Background We aimed to characterize etanercept (ETN) use in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry. Methods The CARRA Registry is a convenience cohort of patients with paediatric onset rheumatic diseases, including JIA. JIA patients treated with ETN for whom the month and year of ETN initiation were available were included. Patterns of ETN and methotrexate (MTX) use were categorized as follows: combination therapy (ETN and MTX started concurrently), step-up therapy (MTX started first and ETN added later), switchers (MTX started and then stopped when or before ETN started), MTX add-on (ETN started first and MTX added later), and ETN only (no MTX use). Data were described using parametric and non-parametric statistics as appropriate. Results Two thousand thirty-two of the five thousand six hundred forty-one patients with JIA met inclusion criteria (74% female, median age at diagnosis 6.0 years [interquartile range 2.0, 11.0]. Most patients (66.9%) were treated with a non-biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD), primarily MTX, prior to ETN. There was significant variability in patterns of MTX use prior to starting ETN. Step-up therapy was the most common approach. Only 34.0% of persistent oligoarticular JIA patients continued treatment with a non-biologic DMARD 3 months or more after ETN initiation. ETN persistence overall was 66.3, 49.4, and 37.3% at 24, 36 and 48 months respectively. ETN persistence among spondyloarthritis patients (enthesitis related arthritis and psoriatic JIA) varied by MTX initiation pattern, with higher ETN persistence rates in those who initiated combination therapy (68.9%) and switchers/ETN only (73.3%) patients compared to step-up (65.4%) and MTX add-on (51.1%) therapy. Conclusion This study characterizes contemporary patterns of ETN use in the CARRA Registry. Treatment was largely in keeping with American College of Rheumatology guidelines.

Clinical remission and subsequent relapse in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: predictive factors according to therapeutic approach

Background Juvenile idiopathic arthritis constitutes a significant cause of disability and quality of life impairment in pediatric and adult patients. The aim of this study was to ascertain clinical remission (CR) and subsequent relapse in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients, according to therapeutic approach and JIA subtype. Evidence in literature regarding its predictors is scarce. Methods We conducted an observational, ambispective study. Patients diagnosed of JIA, treated with synthetic and/or biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) were included and followed-up to December 31st, 2015. Primary outcome was clinical remission defined by Wallace criteria, both on and off medication. In order to ascertain CR according to therapeutic approach, DMARD treatments were divided in four groups: 1) synthetic DMARD (sDMARD) alone, 2) sDMARD combined with another sDMARD, 3) sDMARD combined with biologic DMARD (bDMARD), and 4) bDMARD alone. Results A total of 206 patients who received DMARD treatment were included. At the time the follow-up was completed, 70% of the patients in the cohort had attained CR at least once (144 out of 206), and 29% were in clinical remission off medication (59 out of 206). According to treatment group, CR was more frequently observed in patients treated with synthetic DMARD alone (53%). Within this group, CR was associated with female sex, oligoarticular persistent subtypes, ANA positivity, Methotrexate treatment and absence of HLA B27, comorbidities and DMARD toxicity. 124 DMARD treatments (62%) were withdrawn, 64% of which relapsed. Lower relapse rates were observed in those patients with persistent oligoarticular JIA (93%) when DMARD dose was tapered before withdrawal (77%). Conclusions More than two thirds of JIA patients attained CR along the 9 years of follow-up, and nearly one third achieved CR off medication. Females with early JIA onset, lower active joint count and ANA positivity were the ones achieving and sustaining remission more frequently, especially when receiving synthetic DMARD alone and in the absence of HLA B27, comorbidities or previous DMARD toxicity.

A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study to Define Alarmins and A-SAA Variants as Companion Markers in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

Nowadays, in the study of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), more and more interest is directed towards an earlier effective therapeutic intervention and the determination of companion markers for predicting response to therapy with the goal to prevent progressive joint damage, deformities, and functional disability. With the present work, we aimed at quantifying in a cohort of early RA (ERA) patients naïve to DMARD therapy, proteins whose increase was previously found associated with RA: serum amyloid A (A-SAA) and alarmins. Five A-SAA variants (SAA1α, SAA1β, SAA1γ, SAA2α, and SAA2β) but also S100A8 and S100A9 proteins were simultaneously quantified in plasma applying a method based on single targeted bottom-up proteomics LC-MS/MS. First, we compared their expression between ERA (n = 100) and healthy subjects (n = 100), then we focused on their trend by monitoring ERA patients naïve to DMARD treatment, 1 year after starting therapy. Only SAA1α and SAA2α levels were increased in ERA patients, and SAA2α appears to mostly mediate the pathological role of A-SAA. Levels of these variants, together with SAA1β, only decreased under biologic DMARD treatment but not under methotrexate monotherapy. This study highlights the importance to better understand the modulation of expression of these variants in ERA in order to subsequently better characterize their biological function. On the other hand, alarmin expression increased in ERA compared to controls but remained elevated after 12 months of methotrexate or biologic treatment. The work overcomes the concept of considering these proteins as biomarkers for diagnosis, demonstrating that SAA1α, SAA1β, and SAA2α variants but also S100A8 and S100A9 do not respond to all early treatment in ERA and should be rather considered as companion markers useful to improve the follow-up of treatment response and remission state. Moreover, it suggests that earlier use of biologics in addition to methotrexate may be worth considering.

Persistence to Biologic Therapy among Patients with Spondyloarthritis: An Observational Study using the OPAL Dataset

Objective To describe the treatment response and persistence to biologic DMARD (bDMARD) therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in a real-world Australian cohort. Methods This was a retrospective, non-interventional cohort study that extracted data for patients with AS from the Optimising Patient outcomes in Australian rheumatology (OPAL) dataset for the period Aug-2006 to Sep-2019. Patients were classified as either bDMARD initiators if they commenced a bDMARD during the sampling window, or bDMARD naïve if they did not. Results were summarised descriptively. Treatment persistence was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Differences in treatment persistence were explored using log-rank tests. Results 5048 patients with AS were identified. 2597 patients initiated bDMARDs and 2451 remained bDMARD naïve throughout the study window. Treatment with first, second and third line bDMARDs significantly reduced disease activity. Median persistence on first line bDMARDs was 96 months (95% CI 85 to 109), declining to 19 months (95% CI 16 to 22) in second line, and 14 months (95% CI 11 to 18) in third line therapy. Median persistence was longest for the golimumab treated group in all lines of therapy and shortest for the etanercept group. Differences in persistence rates according to the time-period that bDMARDs were prescribed (pre-and post-2012) were also seen for etanercept and adalimumab. Conclusion In this cohort all bDMARDs effectively reduced disease activity. Patients remained on their first bDMARD longer than subsequent agents. Median persistence was longest for the golimumab treated group in all lines of therapy and shortest for the etanercept group.

Reintroduction of immunosuppressive medications in pediatric rheumatology patients with histoplasmosis: a case series

Background Children with rheumatic diseases (cRD) receiving immunosuppressive medications (IM) are at a higher risk for acquiring potentially lethal pathogens, including Histoplasma capsulatum (histoplasmosis), a fungal infection that can lead to prolonged hospitalization, organ damage, and death. Withholding IM during serious infections is recommended yet poses risk of rheumatic disease flares. Conversely, reinitiating IM increases risk for infection recurrence. Tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (TNFai) biologic therapy carries the highest risk for histoplasmosis infection after epidemiological exposure, so other IM are preferred during active histoplasmosis infection. There is limited guidance as to when and how IM can be reinitiated in cRD with histoplasmosis. This case series chronicles resumption of IM, including non-TNFai biologics, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and corticosteroids, following histoplasmosis among cRD. Case presentation We examine clinical characteristics and outcomes of 9 patients with disseminated or pulmonary histoplasmosis and underlying rheumatic disease [juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE), and mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD)] after reintroduction of IM. All DMARDs and biologics were halted at histoplasmosis diagnosis, except hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and patients began antifungals. Following IM discontinuation, all patients required systemic or intra-articular steroids during histoplasmosis treatment, with 4/9 showing Cushingoid features. Four patients began new IM regimens [2 abatacept (ABA), 1 HCQ, and 1 methotrexate (MTX)] while still positive for histoplasmosis, with 3/4 (ABA, MTX, HCQ) later clearing their histoplasmosis and 1 (ABA) showing decreasing antigenemia. Collectively, 8/9 patients initiated or continued DMARDs and/or non-TNFai biologic use (5 ABA, 1 tocilizumab, 1 ustekinumab, 3 MTX, 4 HCQ, 1 leflunomide). No fatalities, exacerbations, or recurrences of histoplasmosis occurred during follow-up (median 33 months). Conclusions In our cohort of cRD, histoplasmosis course following reintroduction of non-TNFai IM was favorable, but additional studies are needed to evaluate optimal IM management during acute histoplasmosis and recovery. In this case series, non-TNFai biologic, DMARD, and steroid treatments did not appear to cause histoplasmosis recurrence. Adverse events from corticosteroid use were common. Further research is needed to implement guidelines for optimal use of non-TNFai (like ABA), DMARDs, and corticosteroids in cRD following histoplasmosis presentation.

POS0407 PROTEOMICS ANALYSIS COMPARING THE MODE OF ACTION OF UPADACITINIB BETWEEN NON-BIOLOGIC-DMARD-IR AND BIOLOGIC-DMARD-IR PsA PATIENTS IDENTIFIES DISTINCT PATHOGENIC PATHWAYS IN THE SELECT-PsA 1 AND SELECT-PsA 2 PHASE 3 STUDIES

Background:Treatment of non-biologic-DMARD-IR1 (DMARD-IR) and biologic-DMARD-IR2 (bio-IR) PsA patients with upadacitinib (UPA) at 15 mg QD, an oral JAK1 selective inhibitor, resulted in significant improvement in signs and symptoms compared to placebo.Objectives:Using a pre-defined set of inflammation-related plasma protein biomarkers (pBM), to explore immunological pathway modulation by UPA 15 mg QD in PsA patients with active disease despite treatment with non-biologic or biologic DMARDs in the context of clinical response vs. non-response to treatment.Methods:Patients from the SELECT-PsA 1 (DMARD-IR) and the SELECT-PsA 2 (bio-IR) studies were randomly selected (PBO, n=100; UPA 15 mg QD, n=100 for each study). The levels of 92 inflammation related protein biomarkers (pBM) were analyzed using a multiplexed Proximity Extension Assay platform in plasma samples collected at baseline, week 2, and 12; change from baseline in protein levels was expressed as Log2 Fold Change; a Repeated Measure Mixed Linear Model was used to identify pBM modulated by UPA compared to Baseline, and those differentially modulated between responders (R) and non-responders (NR) according to ACR50, PASDAS Minimal Disease Activity, and PASI75 at week 12. Correlation of disease activity measures with relative levels of pBM were derived using Pearson’s correlation; PASI score was transformed as Log10 (x+1) prior to the analysis. Functional pathway prediction was performed in silico with a commercial distributed software.Results:At baseline, the relative levels of 37 pBM correlated with at least one baseline disease activity measure, with a marked positive correlation of IL6 with musculoskeletal end points (PASDAS and DAS28CRP), and a strong positive correlation of IL20, IL17A, IL17C, and TGFA with baseline PASI.At the single pBM-level, treatment with UPA 15 mg QD resulted in a down modulation of pBM associated with T cells, myeloid cells, and IFN-, IL6-, and TNF-related pathways in both DMARD-IR and bio-IR PsA patients. Overall effects of UPA on single pBMs were broadly similar between DMARD-IR and bio-IR patients. However, analysis of pBMs differentially modulated by UPA in R vs NR indicated that favorable clinical response (achievement of ACR50, PASDAS MDA, and PASI75) in DMARD-IR patients was associated with the down modulation of pBMs predicted to be linked to IFN, IL10, IL17, IL22, and IL27 pathways; while favorable clinical response in bio-IR patients was associated with the down modulation of multiple pBM predicted to be linked to the IL17, IL23, and IL1 pathways.Conclusion:UPA effects in both DMARD-IR and bio-IR PsA patients likely stem from the direct and indirect inhibition of multiple biological pathways belonging to the adaptive and innate immune systems. Responder/Non-Responder analysis suggests a possible shift from a TH1 biased biology in DMARD-IR PsA patients to a more TH17 biased biology in bio-IR PsA patients. This apparent change in the disease biology of PsA patients after inadequate response to prior therapy could be attributed to the actual alteration of the disease biology, treatment outcome-based patient selection, or both. Considering the clinical efficacy of UPA in both DMARD-IR and bio-IR PsA patients, this observation highlights the importance of targeting multiple pathways with drugs such as UPA for the treatment of a broad range of PsA patients.References:[1]McInnes, I. et al. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 79, 16-17 (2020).[2]Mease, P.J. et al.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, annrheumdis-2020-218870 (2020).Acknowledgements:AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.Disclosure of Interests:Thierry Sornasse Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, UCB

POS1114 INFECTION RISK AMONG RHEUMATIC PATIENTS RECEIVING DENOSUMAB THERAPY: SINGLE CENTRE EXPERIENCE

Background:Osteoporosis (OS) is common in rheumatic diseasas (RMD). OS fracture leads to morbidity and premature mortality. The treatment for OS is well established with good long term safety profile. Oral bisphosphonate (BIS) is recommended as initial treatment option for both postmenopausal and glucocorticoid induced OS. Denosumab (DSB), is the noninferior alternative option. Despite its efficacy, DSB was linked with elevated infection risk in non RMD. Yet, data in RMD is lacking.Objectives:To determine the infection risk and associated factors in RMD patients receiving DSB.Methods:This is retrospective cohort study. Data was extracted from medical database (between Jan 2010 & Dec 2018) at Selayang Hospital, Malaysia. Descriptive statistical analysis, logistic regression (LR) and cox (proportional hazard) regression [CPHR] were the analysis methods.Results:50 cases were analysed. 96% were female. The median age was 72.5 ± 12.7 years. The primary rheumatological disorders were rheumatoid arthritis (48%), OS (24%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (10%). 92% had ≥ 1 comorbidity including metabolic/cardiovascular diseases (74%), chronic lung diseases (CLD) (40%) and diabetes mellitus (DM) (22%). 54% had disease modifying anti rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy; majority (59.2%) received single conventional synthetic DMARD. Only 7.4% received combination biologic DMARD therapy. 28% had received prednisolone therapy, with dose < 7.5mg OD in 78.6%.The median age at DSB initiation was 71 ± 12.4 years. 38% had fracture history and 88% had received previous OS treatment.In total, 13 infection episodes were recorded. The infection risk was 26% & incidence rate was 134 cases per 1000 person-years. 84.6% required hospitalisation and 38.5% were severe cases. The mortality rate was 23.1%. The mean DSB treatment duration to first infection was 15.46 ± 11.9 months.Univariate LR showed infection risk and hospitalisation were higher with longer DSB treatment duration, OR 1.062 (95% CI: 1.010 - 1.117), p = 0.018) & OR 1.057 (95% CI: 1.003 - 1.114, p = 0.037), respectively. These risks were lower in absence of steroid use, OR 0.2 (95% CI: 0.051 - 0.784, p = 0.021) and OR 0.215 (95% CI: 0.052 - 0.889, p = 0.034), respectively. Additionally, infection risk was lower in absence of CLD, OR 0.188 (95% CI: 0.048 - 0.742, p = 0.017) and hospitalisation was lower without concomitant DM, OR 0.050 (95% CI: 0.050 — 0.950, p = 0.043). Yet, multivariate LR did not infer the above predictions, after adjustment made for age, gender, rheumatological diseases, comorbidity, DMARD therapy and steroid dosing. For severe infection and case fatality, no predictive factors were identified.CPHR showed patients without steroid use had lower fatality risk, HR 0.077 (95% CI: 0.007 - 0.864, p = 0.038). With confounding factors (age, gender, previous infection and comorbidity), the observed difference was insignificant.Conclusion:Risk of infection and hospitalisation could be higher in rheumatic patients receiving longer DSB treatment duration. Concomitant comorbidities (CLD and DM) might increase the risk of infection and/or hospitalisation.References:[1]Cummings SR, San Martin J, McClung MR, Siris ES, Eastell R, Reid IR, et al. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2009;361:756–65.[2]Watts NB, Roux C, Modlin JF, Brown JP, Daniels A, Jackson S, Smith S, Zack DJ, Zhou L, Grauer A, Ferrari S. Infections in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with denosumab or placebo: coincidence or causal association? Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(1):327–337.[3]Prabhakaran S, Pritchard C. Comparison of infection rates in patients receiving denosumab, denosumab and biologics and biologics alone in a suburban rheumatology clinic [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;66 Suppl 10:S409.[4]Bray V, Bagley A, West S, Etzel C, Kremer J, Kolfenbach J. Infection risk among patients receiving concurrent denosumab and biologic or non-biologic DMARD therapy: An analysis of the ConsortiumAcknowledgements:We would like to thank the Director General of Health Malaysia for his permission for this poster presentation.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.