Putman, Michael

ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate the effect of glucocorticoid regimens on renal response, infections, and mortality among patients with lupus nephritis (LN).MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the control arms of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We included RCTs of biopsy‐proven LN that used a protocolized regimen of glucocorticoids in combination with mycophenolic acid analogs or cyclophosphamide and reported the outcomes of complete response (CR), serious infections, and death. The starting dosage of glucocorticoids, tapering method, and administration of glucocorticoid pulses were abstracted. Meta‐analysis of proportions, meta‐regression, and subgroup meta‐analysis were performed at 6 and 12 months for all outcomes.ResultsFifty RCT arms (3,231 patients with LN) were included. The predicted rates of CR, serious infections, and death when starting on oral prednisone at 25 mg/day without pulses were 19.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3–31.5), 3.2% (95% CI 2.4–4.0), and 0.2% (95% CI 0.0–0.4), respectively. Starting on prednisone at 60 mg/day (without pulses) increased the rates to 34.6% (95% CI 16.9–52.3), 12.1% (95% CI 9.3–14.9), and 2.7% (95% CI 0.0–5.3), respectively. Adding glucocorticoid pulses increased the rates of CR and death but not serious infections. We observed a dose–response gradient between the initial glucocorticoid dosage and all the outcomes at six months after accounting for the administration of glucocorticoid pulses, underlying immunosuppressant, and baseline proteinuria.ConclusionA higher exposure to glucocorticoids during the initial therapy of LN was associated with better renal outcomes at the cost of increased infections and death.

ObjectiveNeuroinflammatory adverse events have been observed among new users of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. No studies to date have compared the real‐world risk of TNFs with other new users of biologic or targeted synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs). The objective of this study is to describe the risk of neuroinflammatory disease after initiation b/tsDMARDs.MethodsThis new user comparative effectiveness cohort study used a large US‐based electronic health records database to describe the unadjusted incidence of neuroinflammatory adverse events over a 3‐year period. The cohort included patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis initiating treatment with a TNF inhibitor (n = 93,661) or other b/tsDMARD (n = 38,354).ResultsAmong 132,015 patients included in the analysis, the most common first biologic agent was a TNF inhibitor; the unadjusted incidence of neuroinflammatory events was numerically lower among new users of TNF inhibitors (incidence 1.34 per 1,000 patient‐years) as compared with the combined non‐TNF group (1.69 per 1,000 patient‐years). There was no significant association between TNF exposure and neuroinflammatory events as compared with the combined non‐TNF b/tsDMARDs overall (hazard ratio 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.75–1.36) and within each disease group.ConclusionThe overall risk of neuroinflammatory events among new users of TNF inhibitors did not differ substantially as compared with new users of other b/tsDMARDs. Meta‐analyses of randomized trials should be conducted to corroborate these findings, which may be affected by channeling bias.

Objective We aimed to evaluate the robustness of phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for SLE and lupus nephritis (LN) using the fragility index (FI), the reverse FI (RFI) and the fragility quotient (FQ). Methods We searched for phase III RCTs that included patients with active SLE or LN. Data on primary endpoints, total participants and the number of events for each arm were obtained. We calculated the FI score for RCTs with statistically significant results (number of patients required to change from event to non-event to make the study lose statistical significance), the RFI for RCTs without statistically significant results (number of patients required to change from non-event to event to make study gain statistical significance) and the FQ score for both (FI or RFI score divided by the sample size). Results We evaluated 20 RCTs (16 SLE, four LN). The mean FI/RFI score was 13.6 (SD 6.6). There were nine RCTs with statistically significant results (seven SLE, two LN), and the mean FI score was 10.2 (SD 6.2). The lowest FI was for the ILLUMINATE-2 trial (FI=2), and the highest FI was for the BLISS-52 trial (FI=17). Twelve studies had non-statistically significant results (10 SLE, two LN) with a mean RFI score of 15.6 (SD 6.1). The lowest RFI was for the ILLUMINATE-1 trial (RFI=4), and the highest RFI was for the TULIP-1 trial (RFI=27). The lowest FQ scores were found in the ILLUMINATE trials and the highest in the Rituximab trials (EXPLORER and LUNAR), meaning that the last ones were the most robust results after accounting for sample size. Conclusions The evidence of therapies for patients with SLE and LN is derived mostly from fragile RCTs. Clinicians and trialists must be aware of the fragility of these RCTs for clinical decision-making and designing trials for novel therapeutics.

Abstract Objectives Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide high-quality evidence for treatment efficacy, but many RCTs remain unpublished. The objective of this study was to describe the proportion of unpublished RCTs in five rheumatic diseases and to identify factors associated with publication. Methods Registered RCTs for five rheumatic diseases (SLE, vasculitis, spondyloarthritis, SS and PsA) with over 30 months since study completion were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov. Index publications were identified by NCT ID numbers and structured text searches of publication databases. The results of unpublished studies were identified in abstracts and press releases; reasons for non-publication were assessed by surveying corresponding authors. Results Out of 203 studies that met eligibility criteria, 17.2% remained unpublished, representing data from 4281 trial participants. Higher proportions of published trials were phase 3 RCTs (57.1% vs 28.6% unpublished, P < 0.05) or had a positive primary outcome measure (64.9% vs 25.7% unpublished, P < 0.001). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, a positive outcome was independently associated with publication (hazard ratio 1.55; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.22). Corresponding authors of 10 unpublished trials cited ongoing preparation of the manuscript (50.0%), sponsor/funder issues (40.0%) and unimportant/negative result (20.0%) as reasons for lack of publication. Conclusions Nearly one in five RCTs in rheumatology remain unpublished 2 years after trial completion, and publication is associated with positive primary outcome measures. Efforts to encourage universal publication of rheumatology RCTs and reanalysis of previously unpublished trials should be undertaken.

Objective We investigated prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration, defined as lasting 28 days or longer, among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We analysed data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey (2 April 2021–15 October 2021) to identify people with SARDs reporting test-confirmed COVID-19. Participants reported COVID-19 severity and symptom duration, sociodemographics and clinical characteristics. We reported the proportion experiencing prolonged symptom duration and investigated associations with baseline characteristics using logistic regression. Results We identified 441 respondents with SARDs and COVID-19 (mean age 48.2 years, 83.7% female, 39.5% rheumatoid arthritis). The median COVID-19 symptom duration was 15 days (IQR 7, 25). Overall, 107 (24.2%) respondents had prolonged symptom duration (≥28 days); 42/429 (9.8%) reported symptoms lasting ≥90 days. Factors associated with higher odds of prolonged symptom duration included: hospitalisation for COVID-19 vs not hospitalised and mild acute symptoms (age-adjusted OR (aOR) 6.49, 95% CI 3.03 to 14.1), comorbidity count (aOR 1.11 per comorbidity, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21) and osteoarthritis (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.27). COVID-19 onset in 2021 vs June 2020 or earlier was associated with lower odds of prolonged symptom duration (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81). Conclusion Most people with SARDs had complete symptom resolution by day 15 after COVID-19 onset. However, about 1 in 4 experienced COVID-19 symptom duration 28 days or longer; 1 in 10 experienced symptoms 90 days or longer. Future studies are needed to investigate the possible relationships between immunomodulating medications, SARD type/flare, vaccine doses and novel viral variants with prolonged COVID-19 symptoms and other postacute sequelae of COVID-19 among people with SARDs.

BackgroundComparative efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compare two active interventions in a head‐to‐head design. They are useful for informing clinical practice guidelines, but the degree to which such trials inform clinical practice guidelines in rheumatology is unknown.MethodsThe American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) websites were searched from January 1, 2017, to June 12, 2021, for clinical practice guidelines. RCTs referenced by each guideline were identified, and information regarding design and outcomes were extracted. Clinical practice recommendations from each guideline were also analyzed.ResultsFifteen ACR‐ and nine EULAR‐endorsed guidelines were included, which cited 609 RCTs and provided 481 recommendations. Referenced RCTs enrolled an average of 418 patients (SD 985), most commonly evaluated biologic/targeted synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (70.1%), and infrequently used a head‐to‐head design (28%). A minority of recommendations received a high level of evidence (LOE) by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology (2.9%) or an “A” grade by the Oxford Centre for Evidence based Medicine Standards (OCEBM) methodology (28.9%). LOE was higher for recommendations informed by RCTs (P < 0.001) or head‐to‐head RCTs (P = 0.008). Many recommendations received a strong recommendation despite low (8 [2.6%]) or very low (25 [8.3%]) LOE.ConclusionLess than one in six rheumatology guideline recommendations are informed by head‐to‐head RCTs. Recommendations that were informed by head‐to‐head RCTs were more likely to have a high LOE by both GRADE and OCEBM. Efforts to introduce more comparative efficacy RCTs should be undertaken.

ObjectiveThe relative risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID‐19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel‐Haenszel formula with random effects models.ResultsOf the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta‐analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16–2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08–2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID‐19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD.ConclusionPatients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and an increased mortality rate.

ObjectivePayments from the pharmaceutical industry to practicing physicians may influence prescribing behavior. This study was undertaken to investigate the nature, quantity, and geographic distribution of payments to US rheumatologists.MethodsGeneral payments from industry sponsors to US rheumatologists from 2014 to 2019 were extracted from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Gender was identified by linking physicians to the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System registry. Data were reported in aggregate, trends over time were assessed using linear regression models, and differences by gender were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsOver the 6‐year time period from 2014 to 2019, a total of 1,610,668 payments totaling $221,254,966 were made to 5,723 rheumatologists. The median payment was $15 (interquartile range [IQR] $10 to $22), and the median total amount received by individual rheumatologists over the 6‐year period was $2,818 (IQR $464 to $11,560). The majority of rheumatologists (3,416 of 5,723 [60%]) received less than $5,000, but 368 of 5,723 (6%) received more than $100,000 each and accounted for 78% of the total. The yearly value of payments increased over time ($3,703,264 per year; P < 0.001), and the median payment to male rheumatologists was significantly higher than the median payment to female rheumatologists ($3,723 [IQR $542 to $15,841] versus $2,084 [IQR $394 to $8,186]; P < 0.001).ConclusionThe value of industry payments has increased over time, and a large amount is concentrated among a small number of rheumatologists. Future studies should investigate the degree to which industry payments have influenced prescribing in the field of rheumatology.