Duarte-García, Alí

ObjectiveApproximately one third of individuals worldwide have not received a COVID‐19 vaccine. Although studies have investigated risk factors linked to severe COVID‐19 among unvaccinated people with rheumatic diseases (RDs), we know less about whether these factors changed as the pandemic progressed. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with severe COVID‐19 in unvaccinated individuals in different pandemic epochs corresponding to major variants of concern.MethodsPatients with RDs and COVID‐19 were entered into the COVID‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry between March 2020 and June 2022. An ordinal logistic regression model (not hospitalized, hospitalized, and death) was used with date of COVID‐19 diagnosis, age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, comorbidities, RD activity, medications, and the human development index (HDI) as covariates. The main analysis included all unvaccinated patients across COVID‐19 pandemic epochs; subanalyses stratified patients according to RD types.ResultsAmong 19,256 unvaccinated people with RDs and COVID‐19, those who were older, male, had more comorbidities, used glucocorticoids, had higher disease activity, or lived in lower HDI regions had worse outcomes across epochs. For those with rheumatoid arthritis, sulfasalazine and B‐cell–depleting therapy were associated with worse outcomes, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were associated with improved outcomes. In those with connective tissue disease or vasculitis, B‐cell–depleting therapy was associated with worse outcomes.ConclusionRisk factors for severe COVID‐19 outcomes were similar throughout pandemic epochs in unvaccinated people with RDs. Ongoing efforts, including vaccination, are needed to reduce COVID‐19 severity in this population, particularly in those with medical and social vulnerabilities identified in this study.

Objective To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR. Methods This international multidisciplinary initiative included 4 phases: 1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; 2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; 3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real‐world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus‐based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and 4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators’ consensus as the gold standard. Results The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL‐associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1–7 points each) clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and 2 laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid‐phase enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti–β 2 ‐glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least 3 points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria versus the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% versu s 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% versus 99%. Conclusion These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk‐stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

ObjectiveWe aimed to develop readily measurable digital quality measure statements for clinical care in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) using a multistep process guided by consensus methods.MethodsUsing a modified Delphi process, an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) workgroup of SLE experts reviewed all North American and European guidelines from 2000 to 2020 on treatment, monitoring, and phenotyping of patients with lupus. Workgroup members extracted quality constructs from guidelines, rated these by importance and feasibility, and generated evidence‐based quality measure statements. The ACR Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry was queried for measurement data availability. In 3 consecutive Delphi sessions, a multidisciplinary Delphi panel voted on the importance and feasibility of each statement. Proposed measures with consensus on feasibility and importance were ranked to identify the top 3 measures.ResultsReview of guidelines and distillation of 57 quality constructs resulted in 15 quality measure statements. Among these, 5 met high consensus for importance and feasibility, including 2 on treatment and 3 on laboratory monitoring measures. The 3 highest‐ranked statements were recommended for further measure specification as SLE digital quality measures: 1) hydroxychloroquine use, 2) limiting glucocorticoid use >7.5 mg/day to <6 months, and 3) end‐organ monitoring of kidney function and urine protein excretion at least every 6 months.ConclusionThe Delphi process selected 3 quality measures for SLE care on hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoid reduction, and kidney monitoring. Next, measures will undergo specification and validity testing in RISE and US rheumatology practices as the foundation for national implementation and use in quality improvement programs.image

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 &lt; 0.05) or had a positive primary outcome measure (64.9% vs 25.7% unpublished, P &lt; 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.

ObjectiveTo determine the association between race/ethnicity and COVID‐19 outcomes in individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsIndividuals with SLE from the US with data entered into the COVID‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry between March 24, 2020 and August 27, 2021 were included. Variables included age, sex, race, and ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, other), comorbidities, disease activity, pandemic time period, glucocorticoid dose, antimalarials, and immunosuppressive drug use. The ordinal outcome categories were: not hospitalized, hospitalized with no oxygenation, hospitalized with any ventilation or oxygenation, and death. We constructed ordinal logistic regression models evaluating the relationship between race/ethnicity and COVID‐19 severity, adjusting for possible confounders.ResultsWe included 523 patients; 473 (90.4%) were female and the mean ± SD age was 46.6 ± 14.0 years. A total of 358 patients (74.6%) were not hospitalized; 40 patients (8.3%) were hospitalized without oxygen, 64 patients (13.3%) were hospitalized with any oxygenation, and 18 (3.8%) died. In a multivariable model, Black (odds ratio [OR] 2.73 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.36–5.53]) and Hispanic (OR 2.76 [95% CI 1.34–5.69]) individuals had higher odds of more severe outcomes than White individuals.ConclusionBlack and Hispanic individuals with SLE experienced more severe COVID‐19 outcomes, which is consistent with findings in the US general population. These results likely reflect socioeconomic and health disparities and suggest that more aggressive efforts are needed to prevent and treat infection in this population.

Objective There is a paucity of population‐based studies investigating the epidemiology of lupus nephritis (LN) in the US and long‐term secular trends of the disease and its outcomes. We aimed to examine the epidemiology of LN in a well‐defined 8‐county region in the US. Methods Patients with incident LN between 1976 and 2018 in Olmsted County, Minnesota (1976–2009) and an 8‐county region in southeast Minnesota (2010–2018) were identified. Age‐ and sex‐specific incidence rates and point prevalence over 4 decades, adjusted to the projected 2000 US population, were determined. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), survival rates, and time to end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) were estimated. Results There were 72 patients with incident LN between 1976 and 2018, of whom 76% were female and 69% were non‐Hispanic White. Mean ± SD age at diagnosis was 38.4 ± 16.24 years. Average annual LN incidence per 100,000 population between 1976 and 2018 was 1.0 (95% CI 0.8–1.3) and was highest in patients ages 30–39 years. Between the 1976–1989 and 2000–2018 time periods, overall incidence of LN increased from 0.7 to 1.3 per 100,000, but this was not statistically significant. Estimated LN prevalence increased from 16.8 per 100,000 in 1985 to 21.2 per 100,000 in 2015. Patients with LN had an SMR of 6.33 (95% CI 3.81–9.89), with no improvement in the mortality gap in the last 4 decades. At 10 years, survival was 70%, and 13% of LN patients had ESRD. Conclusion The incidence and prevalence of LN in this area increased in the last 4 decades. LN patients have poor outcomes, with high rates of ESRD and mortality rates 6 times that of the general population.

ObjectiveTo describe people with gout who were diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and hospitalized and to characterize their outcomes.MethodsData on patients with gout hospitalized for COVID‐19 between March 12, 2020, and October 25, 2021, were extracted from the COVID‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographics, comorbidities, medication exposures, and COVID‐19 outcomes including oxygenation or ventilation support and death.ResultsOne hundred sixty‐three patients with gout who developed COVID‐19 and were hospitalized were included. The mean age was 63 years, and 85% were male. The majority of the group lived in the Western Pacific Region (35%) and North America (18%). Nearly half (46%) had two or more comorbidities, with hypertension (56%), cardiovascular disease (28%), diabetes mellitus (26%), chronic kidney disease (25%), and obesity (23%) being the most common. Glucocorticoids and colchicine were used pre‐COVID‐19 in 11% and 12% of the cohort, respectively. Over two thirds (68%) of the cohort required supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support during hospitalization. COVID‐19‐related death was reported in 16% of the overall cohort, with 73% of deaths documented in people with two or more comorbidities.ConclusionThis cohort of people with gout and COVID‐19 who were hospitalized had high frequencies of ventilatory support and death. This suggests that patients with gout who were hospitalized for COVID‐19 may be at risk of poor outcomes, perhaps related to known risk factors for poor outcomes, such as age and presence of comorbidity.

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.

ObjectiveSome patients with rheumatic diseases might be at higher risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to develop a prediction model for COVID‐19 ARDS in this population and to create a simple risk score calculator for use in clinical settings.MethodsData were derived from the COVID‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry from March 24, 2020, to May 12, 2021. Seven machine learning classifiers were trained on ARDS outcomes using 83 variables obtained at COVID‐19 diagnosis. Predictive performance was assessed in a US test set and was validated in patients from four countries with independent registries using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A simple risk score calculator was developed using a regression model incorporating the most influential predictors from the best performing classifier.ResultsThe study included 8633 patients from 74 countries, of whom 523 (6%) had ARDS. Gradient boosting had the highest mean AUC (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67‐0.88) and was considered the top performing classifier. Ten predictors were identified as key risk factors and were included in a regression model. The regression model that predicted ARDS with 71% (95% CI: 61%‐83%) sensitivity in the test set, and with sensitivities ranging from 61% to 80% in countries with independent registries, was used to develop the risk score calculator.ConclusionWe were able to predict ARDS with good sensitivity using information readily available at COVID‐19 diagnosis. The proposed risk score calculator has the potential to guide risk stratification for treatments, such as monoclonal antibodies, that have potential to reduce COVID‐19 disease progression.