Maroufy, Vahed

Abstract Objectives To investigate health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) compared with those with non-IIM autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs) and without autoimmune diseases (controls) using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instrument data obtained from the second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) e-survey database. Methods Demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments and PROMIS instrument data were analysed. Primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis. Results We analysed responses from 1582 IIM, 4700 non-IIM AIRD and 545 nrAID patients and 3675 controls gathered through 23 May 2022. The median GPH scores were the lowest in IIM and non-IIM AIRD patients {13 [interquartile range (IQR) 10–15] IIMs vs 13 [11–15] non-IIM AIRDs vs 15 [13–17] nrAIDs vs 17 [15–18] controls, P < 0.001}. The median GMH scores in IIM patients were also significantly lower compared with those without autoimmune diseases [13 (IQR 10–15) IIMs vs 15 (13–17) controls, P < 0.001]. Inclusion body myositis, comorbidities, active disease and glucocorticoid use were the determinants of lower GPH scores, whereas overlap myositis, interstitial lung disease, depression, active disease, lower PROMIS Physical Function 10a and higher PROMIS Fatigue 4a scores were associated with lower GMH scores in IIM patients. Conclusion Both physical and mental health are significantly impaired in IIM patients, particularly in those with comorbidities and increased fatigue, emphasizing the importance of patient-reported experiences and optimized multidisciplinary care to enhance well-being in people with IIMs.

SummaryBackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated an association between nonselective beta‐blockers (NSBBs) and lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis. However, there has been no population‐based study investigating the risk of HCC among cirrhotic patients treated using carvedilol.AimsTo determine the risk of HCC among cirrhotic patients with NSBBs including carvedilol.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study utilised the Cerner Health Facts database in the United States from 2000 to 2017. Kaplan‐Meier estimate, Cox proportional hazards regression, and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to test the HCC risk among the carvedilol, nadolol, and propranolol groups compared with no beta‐blocker group.ResultsThe final cohort comprised 107 428 eligible patients. The 100‐month cumulative HCC incidence of NSBBs was significantly lower than the no beta‐blocker group (carvedilol (11.24%) vs no beta‐blocker (15.69%), nadolol (27.55%) vs no beta‐blocker (32.11%), and propranolol (26.17%) vs no beta‐blocker (28.84%) (P values < 0.0001). NSBBs were associated with a significantly lower risk of HCC (Hazard ratio: carvedilol 0.61 (95% CI 0.51‐0.73), nadolol 0.74 (95% CI 0.63‐0.87), propranolol 0.75 (95% CI 0.66‐0.84) after PSM in the multivariate cox analysis. In subgroup analysis, NSBBs reduced the risk of HCC in cirrhosis with complications and non‐alcoholic cirrhosis.ConclusionsNSBBs, including carvedilol, were associated with a significantly decreased risk of HCC in patients with cirrhosis when compared with no beta‐blocker regardless of complications status. Future randomised‐controlled studies comparing the incidence of HCC among NSBBs should elucidate which NSBB would be the best option to prevent HCC in cirrhosis.