Background: Recommendations to collect the most relevant information on disease course, treatment and outcomes in giant cell arteritis (GCA) has been proposed by EULAR to facilitate clinical research and to improve clinical care. Objectives: To assess the quality of data collection in routine clinical practice according to EULAR recommendations and to describe baseline and follow-up characteristics of a retrospective cohort of patients with GCA. Methods: We reviewed medical records of patients diagnosed with GCA in a tertiary academic center between 2004-2018. We included patients with available data at diagnosis and one year of follow-up. Data extraction included: demographics, diagnosis, GCA-related signs and symptoms, laboratory, imaging modalities, comorbidities and treatment. Data in the chart was then compared with the core set of parameters proposed for GCA registries and databases by EULAR. Major relapse, according to the EULAR 2018 definition, was independently assessed by two rheumatologists. Results: 58 patients were identified, 39 met predefined inclusion criteria with 151 visits during first-year follow-up. Headache (100%; 80.4%), ocular symptoms (89.7%; 81.2%), constitutional symptoms (89.7%; 80.4%), polymyalgia rheumatica (89.7%; 82%) and jaw claudication (87%; 81.2%) were the most frequently collected items at baseline and follow-up. Weight and height (2.6%; 2.6%), peripheral pulses (8%; 4.5%), smoking status (41%; 21%), and blood pressure (61.5%; 4.5%) were the less frequently collected. Most patients lacked differential pressure measurement. Myocardial infarction, malignancy, serious infections, arterial hypertension, diabetes and osteoporosis were collected in every patient (39, 100%). Only 2 mayor relapses were identified (5%). Two (2) patients died during the one-year follow-up period. Table 1 provides information on GCA-related signs and symptoms, laboratory and therapeutic data. Table 1. GCA-related signs and symptoms, laboratory and therapeutic data. Item Performed Baseline Baseline n=39 Performed Follow-up Follow-up n=112 Ocular symptoms 35/39 (89.7%) 15/35 (42.9%) 91/112 (81.2%) 29/91 (31.9%) Permanent ocular symptoms 34/39 (87%) 9/34 (26.5%) 92/112 (82%) 28/92 (30.4%) Headache 39 (100%) 30/39 (77%) 90/112 (80.4%) 13/90 (14.4%) Scalp tenderness 31/39 (79.5%) 9/31 (29.8%) 88/112 (78.6%) 4/88 (4.5%) Jaw claudication 34/39 (87%) 19/34 (55.85) 91/112 (81.2%) 6/91 (6.6%) Cranial artery abnormality 27/39 (69.2%) 17/27 (63%) 69/112 (61.6%) 3/69 (4.3%) Constitutional symptoms 35/39 (89.7%) 19/35 (54.3%) 90/112 (80.4%) 11/90 (12.2%) PMR 35/39 (89.7%) 18/35 (51.4%) 92/112 (82%) 9/92 (9.8%) ESR mean (SD ) 33/39 (84.6%) 58.7 (32.1) 83/112 (74%) 14.6 (18.8) CRP mean (SD ) 31/39 (79.5%) 8.4 (7.9) 70/112 (62.5%) 1.3 (3.3) Haemoglobin mean (SD ) 38/39 (97.4%) 12.0 (1.7) 90/112 (80.4%) 12.9 (1.5) Peripheral pulses 9/39 (8%) 3/9 (33.3%) 5/112 (4.5%) 2/5 (40%) Large vessel involvement 8/39 (20.5%) 5/8 (62.5%) 7/112 (6.25%) 3/7 (42.8%) Glucocorticoids median (IQR ) 39 (100%) 102.5 (50-250) 112 (100%) 10.0 (5-15) Synthetic DMARD 39 (100%) 8/39 (20.5%) 111/112 (99%) 17/39 (43.6%) Biological DMARD 39 (100%) 0/39 (0%) 111/112 (99%) 3/39 (7.7%) Antiplatelet agents 39 (100%) 6/39 (15.4%) 110/112 (98%) 25/110 (22.7%) PMR: polymyalgia rheumatica, ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate, CRP: C-reactive protein, SD: standard deviation, IQR: interquartile range, DMARD: disease modifying antirheumatic drugs Conclusion: Although data collection in routine care is usually comprehensive enough according to EULAR proposed data set, key components in physical exam mostly those aiming to detect large vessel involvement, should be addressed more carefully. References: [1]Ehlers L, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(9):1160–6. [2]Hellmich B, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;1–12. Disclosure of Interests: Julia Martínez-Barrio Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Belén Serrano Benavente: None declared, Tamara Del Río Blasco: None declared, Alfonso Ariza: None declared, Juan Ovalles: None declared, Juan Molina Collada: None declared, Teresa González: None declared, Carlos Gonzalez Consultant of: Gilead, Janssen, Novartis,, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Isabel Castrejon: None declared, Jose Maria Alvaro Gracia: None declared

Background: Sjogren’s syndrome (SS) is characterized by lymphocytic infiltration of the exocrine glands and marked B-lymphocytic cell hyperreactivity involving a variety of serum autoantibodies. 1 Salivary Gland Ultrasound (SGU) is a simple, fast, and well- tolerated examination, wich provides information about glandular structure and has proven to be very useful in the Sjögren Syndrome diagnosis 2 . A prognostic value has also been proposed due to its posible relationship with lymphomas and extra-glandular manifestations. Objectives: The objective of our study is to evaluate ultrasound results in patients who went through an SGU in clinical practice, its usefulness in the diagnosis of Sjögren’s syndrome and the presence of complications (lymphomas, extra-glandular manifestations or factors related to increased lymphoma risk). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study with review of clinical records that included all those patients coded as SGU in the Ultrasound unit of Rheumatology Department from 2016 to December 2019. Information collected included final diagnosis, laboratory results, clinical manifestations and ultrasound results. We performed an analysis on the frequency of pathological SGU and on the relationship between this lesions in patients with final SS diagnosis and the presence of lymphoma, extra-glandular manifestations and the laboratory values related with increased lymphoma risk (low complement levels, cryoglobulinemia, positive autoimmunity). Results: SGU was performed in 171 patients in four years, 162 women (94.7%). The previous diagnoses, reason for the request and final diagnosis are shown in Table 1. The vast majority of the SGU were normal, only 28 (16,3%) were pathological, 13 with a grade II and 8 with a grade III. In the other 7 patients grading was not available. Of the 28 patients with pathological SGU, none had lymphoma, only 3 had recurrent parotitis and 15 had had extra-glandular manifestations, mainly arthralgia / arthritis (12). Only 1 patient, with rheumatoid arthritis, had had a lymphoma and the SGU was normal. Antibody positivity was frequent in pathological SGU, 16/23 antinuclear antibodies, 13/22 anti-Ro and 9/23 rheumatoid factor. Of the 86 patients without previous diagnosis, 18 were diagnosed with Sjogren syndrome, 9 with pathological SGU and the rest were normal. No patient diagnosed with a dry non-autoimmune syndrome presented pathological SGU. Table 1. Previous diagnoses, reason for request and final diagnoses. Previous diagnoses (n: 171) Reason for request (n: 171) Final diagnosis (n: 78) Without prior diagnosis (n: 86) Dry non- autoinmune syndrome (n: 127) Dry non-autoimmune syndrome (n: 60) Primary Sjögren’s syndrome (n: 11) Primary Sjögren’s syndrome (n: 12) Primary Sjögren’s syndrome (n: 18) Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (n: 9) Lymphoma (n: 0) Secondary Sjögren’s syndrome (n: 0) Rheumatoid arthritis (n: 24) Control (n: 13) Other diagnoses (n: 7) Other diagnoses (n: 18) Other reasons (n: 11) Conclusion: The impact of the SGU is low and its use cannot, for now, displace other methods (e.g. salivary gland biopsy) in the diagnosis of SS. Also our low number of patients with pathological SGU together with the low prevalence of the complications studied (e.g. lymphomas = 1) prevents the expected comparisons. References: [1]Ramos-Casals M, Solans R, Rosas J, et al. Primary Sjogren syndrome in Spain: clinical and immunologic expression in 1010 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2008; 87: 210–219. [2]Damjanov N, Milic V, Nieto-Gonzalez JC, et al. Multiobserver Reliability of Ultrasound Assessment of Salivary Glands in Patients with Established Primary Sjogren Syndrome. J Rheumatology 2016; 43: 1858–1863. Disclosure of Interests: Fernando Montero: None declared, Karen Carpio: None declared, Iustina Janta: None declared, Juan Molina Collada: None declared, Belén Serrano Benavente: None declared, Julia Martínez-Barrio Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Alfonso Ariza: None declared, Javier Rivera: None declared, Carlos Gonzalez Consultant of: Gilead, Janssen, Novartis,, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Indalecio Monteagudo: None declared, Juan Carlos Nieto Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbvie, MSD, Novartis, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, BMS, Gebro, FAES Farma, Roche, Sanofi

Background: Monosodium urate crystals deposition arthritis (Gout) is the most prevalent inflammatory arthropathy in our society. The use of muskuloskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) is emerging as a diagnostic method of patients with gout, mainly in the past few years. Objectives: Our objective is to establish the prevalence of articular and periarticular ultrasound lesions in patients with known or recent gout diagnosis without urate-lowering therapy (ULT) as well as to analyze the influence of disease duration on these findings. Methods: Observational, cross-sectional and descriptive study, including patients with diagnosis of Gout (fulfilling the ACR / EULAR Classification Criteria 2015) between September and November 2019 in our Rheumatology service of a tertiary center. Demographic and clinical records were collected (table 1) and MSUS was performed on each patient systematically by two rheumatologists, exploring a total of 20 structures (8 tendons and 12 joints). Suggestive images of MSU crystals deposition were defined following the OMERACT 2015 ultrasound elementary lesions definitions. Deposits included lesions as tophus, hyperechoic aggregates (HA) and double contour (DC). Table 1. Demographic and laboratory data Features Patients (n=38 ) % Sex Men 34 Women 4 89,5 10,5 Age (years ) Mean ±SD 60±14,43 Comorbidities Arterial hypertension18 Mellitus diabetes 4 Dyslipidemia 13 Smoking 7 Alcohol 14 47,4 10,5 34,2 18,4 36,8 BMI (Kg/m2 ) Mean±SD 27,3±4,23 Blood urate levels (mg/dL ) Mean±SD 8,2±1,74 Blood creatinine levels (mg/dL ) Mean±SD 1,09±0,75 Results: A total of 38 patients were included, 34 men (89.5%) and 4 women (10.5). Twenty seven (71.1%) presented MSU crystals in synovial fluid samples, while rest of them (28.9%) met 2015 ACR / EULAR Clasiffication Criteria for Gout. Disease duration (since onset of symptoms) was less than 6 months in 20 patients (52.6%) and longer than 6 months in 18 (47.36%). Thirty seven patients (97.36%) presented some type of MSU deposits on the explored areas. One hundred and thirty (17,10%), out of 760 explored locations, had MSU deposits. Patients with disease duration less than 6 months had 56 locations with deposits (43.07%), while those with a symptomathology longer than 6 months had 74 locations with deposits (56.92%). Left knee was the most frequent location of UMS deposits (78.95%). Out of the 145 MSUS images with elementary lesions due to MSU crystal deposits, 28 were tophi (19.31%), 33 HA (22.75) and 84 DC (57.93%). Out of the total images with deposits (DC, HA and tophi), DC in the left knee was the most frequent (21.38%), followed by DC in right knee (17.24%) and DC in 1st MTP (10.24%). Conclusion: Almost 100% of patients with recently diagnosed gout without ULT, presented on at least one of the scanned locations MSUS images suggestive by MSU crystals deposition. Most of MSU crystals deposits were on knees and 1st MTP. Patients with non-treated longer than 6 months of disease duration gout had a greater number of MSU crystals deposit locations detected by MSUS. The presence of tophi and HA was statistically higher in patients with disease duration longer than 6 months (table 2). Table 2. MSU crystals median locations and MSUS images in both groups <6months (n,% ) >6months (n,% ) p value Deposits locations 56 (43,07) 74 (56,92) 0,075 1 MSUS images with deposits -Tophi Median, IR () - HA Median, IR () - DC Median, IR () 8 (28,57) 0 (0-0) 7 (21,21) 0 (0-0) 39 (46,43) 0,5 (0-1) 20 (71,43) 0 (0-1) 26 (78,79) 0 (0-1) 45 (53,57) 0 (0-2) 0,018 1 0,023 1 0,853 1 1 Mann-Whitney U test comparing medians between both groups IR: interquartile range References: [1]Norkuviene E, Petraitis M, Apanaviciene I, Virviciute D and Baranauskaite A. An optimal ultrasonographic diagnostic test for early gout: A prospective controlled study. J Int Med Res. 2017 Aug. [2]Neogi T, Jansen TLA A, Dalbeth N, Fransen J, Schumacher HR, Berendsen D et al. 2015 Gout Classification Criteria. An American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Collaborative Initiative. Arthritis & Rheumatology. Vol. 67, No. 10, October 2015. Disclosure of Interests: : Luis A Torrens Cid: None declared, Juan Molina Collada: None declared, Christian Y Soleto: None declared, Liz R. Caballero Motta: None declared, Ana Melissa Anzola Alfaro: None declared, Alfonso Ariza: None declared, Isabel Castrejón Fernández: None declared, Javier Rivera: None declared, Jose-Maria Alvaro-Gracia Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Elli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Elli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Tigenix, Roche, UCB, Paid instructor for: Elli-Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Elli-Lilly, Gedeon Richter, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Tigenix, Roche, UCB, Juan Carlos Nieto Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbvie, MSD, Novartis, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, BMS, Gebro, FAES Farma, Roche, Sanofi