Figueroa-Parra, Gabriel

ObjectiveWe aimed to characterize presentation and care pathways of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and delays in access to SLE‐specialized care.MethodsWe included patients with incident SLE from the Lupus Midwest Network registry. Time from the first medical encounter for SLE clinical manifestation to access to SLE‐specialized care, physician diagnosis, and treatment was estimated. Delays were defined as ≥6 months to access specialized care. We compared SLE manifestations, disease activity, and Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology damage indexes (SDI) between patients with and without delays. Logistic regression models assessed associations with delays.ResultsThe study included 373 patients with SLE. The median time to access SLE‐specialized care was 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9–1.5) months, time to diagnosis was 30.6 (95% CI 18.9–48.1) months, and time to treatment initiation was 4.7 (95% CI 3.9–8.4) months. Approximately 25% of patients (93 out of 373) experienced delays accessing specialized care, which were associated with fewer SLE manifestations at first SLE‐related encounter (fewer than two SLE domains; 92% vs 72%, P < 0.001). Patients with mucocutaneous or musculoskeletal manifestations were less likely to experience delays, whereas hematologic (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% CI 1.03–2.84) or antiphospholipid antibodies domains (OR 6.05, 95% CI 2.46–14.88) were associated with delays. Delays were associated with damage at first access to SLE‐specialized care (SDI ≥1; 30% vs 7%, P < 0.001).ConclusionPatients follow a heterogeneous pathway to receive care. One‐fourth of patients experienced delays accessing SLE‐specialized care, which was associated with disease‐related damage. Fewer manifestations, hematologic manifestations, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with delays.image

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.

ObjectiveWhile thrombosis and pregnancy loss are the best‐known clinical features of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), many patients also exhibit “extra‐criteria” manifestations, such as thrombocytopenia. The mechanisms that drive APS thrombocytopenia are not completely understood, and no clinical biomarkers are available for predicting antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)–mediated thrombocytopenia. Calprotectin is a heterodimer of S100A8 and S100A9 that is abundant in the neutrophil cytoplasm and released upon proinflammatory neutrophil activation. Here, we sought to evaluate the presence, clinical associations, and potential mechanistic roles of circulating calprotectin in a cohort of primary APS and aPL‐positive patients.MethodsLevels of circulating calprotectin were determined in plasma by the QUANTA Flash chemiluminescent assay. A viability dye‐based platelet assay was used to assess the potential impact of calprotectin on aPL‐mediated thrombocytopenia.ResultsCirculating calprotectin was measured in 112 patients with primary APS and 30 aPL‐positive (without APS criteria manifestations or lupus) patients as compared to patients with lupus (without APS), patients with unprovoked venous thrombosis (without aPL), and healthy controls. Levels of calprotectin were higher in patients with primary APS and aPL‐positive patients compared to healthy controls. After adjustment for age and sex, calprotectin level correlated positively with absolute neutrophil count (r = 0.41, P < 0.001), positively with C‐reactive protein level (r = 0.34, P = 0.002), and negatively with platelet count (r = −0.24, P = 0.004). Mechanistically, we found that calprotectin provoked aPL‐mediated thrombocytopenia by engaging platelet surface toll‐like receptor 4 and activating the NLRP3‐inflammasome, thereby reducing platelet viability in a caspase‐1‐dependent manner.ConclusionThese data suggest that calprotectin has the potential to be a functional biomarker and a new therapeutic target for APS thrombocytopenia.image

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 The objectives of this study were to assess the prevalence and incidence of multimorbidity and its association with the SLICC/ACR damage index (SDI) among patients with SLE. Methods Using prevalent and incident population–based cohorts of patients with SLE and their matched comparators, we assessed 57 chronic conditions. Chronic conditions were categorized as SDI-related or SDI-unrelated. Multimorbidity was defined as the presence of two or more chronic conditions. The prevalence of multimorbidity for both cohorts was compared using logistic regression. Cox models were used to examine the development of multimorbidity after SLE incidence. Results The prevalent cohort included 449 patients with established SLE on 1 January 2015. They were three times more likely to have multimorbidity compared with non-SLE comparators [odds ratio (OR) 2.98, 95% CI 2.18–4.11]. The incident cohort included 270 patients with new-onset SLE. At SLE incidence, patients with SLE were more likely to have multimorbidity than comparators (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.59–3.27). After incidence, the risk of developing multimorbidity was 2-fold higher among patients with SLE than among comparators [hazard ratio (HR) 2.11, 95% CI 1.59–2.80]. The development of multimorbidity was higher in patients with SLE based on SDI-related conditions (HR 2.91, 95% CI 2.17–3.88) than on SDI-unrelated conditions (HR 1.73, 95% CI, 1.32–2.26). Conclusion Patients with SLE had a higher burden of multimorbidity, even before the onset of the disease. The risk disparity continued after SLE classification and was also seen in a prevalent SLE cohort. Multimorbidity was driven both by SDI-related and unrelated conditions.

Objectives The objective is to examine utilisation of cardiovascular preventive services in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), compared with a non-RA population, and to examine cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening rates among RA patients without diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension or hyperlipidaemia to non-RA patients with one of these diagnoses. Methods All ≥18-year-old patients with an RA diagnosis living in one of eight Minnesota counties on 1 January 2015 were included and matched (1:1) by sex, age and county to non-RA comparators. Rates of screening for CVD risk factors, including DM (ie, glucose), hypertension (ie, blood pressure) and hyperlipidaemia (ie, lipids), were compared between groups using Cox models. Results The study included 1614 patients with RA and 1599 non-RA comparators. DM screening was more common among patients with RA (HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.19), as was hypertension screening (HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.24 to 1.52). Hyperlipidaemia screening in RA was similar to comparators (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.10). Conversely, patients with RA and no CVD risk factors had a lower probability of undergoing diabetes (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.78) and hyperlipidaemia screening (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.79) than non-RA patients with only one CVD risk factor diagnosis. Hypertension screening was similar between both groups. Conclusions RA patients undergo CVD preventive screening at rates at least comparable to the general population. However, patients with RA as their sole CVD risk factor were less likely to undergo screenings, despite an equivalent-to-higher risk as the traditional CVD risk factors. These findings demonstrate opportunities for improvement of RA patient care.

Objective The aim of this study was to determine inpatient health care utilization in an incident cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) compared with the general population. Methods This was a population-based cohort study in the upper Midwest, United States. We included patients fulfilling the European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology SLE classification criteria between 1995 and 2018. They were 1:1 age-, sex-, county-matched with individuals without SLE. All hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits were electronically retrieved for 1995–2020. Rates for hospital admission, length of stay, readmission, ED visits, and discharge destination were compared between groups. Results Three hundred forty-one patients with SLE and 341 comparators without SLE were included (mean age, 48.6 years at diagnosis; 79.2% female). Rates of hospitalization for patients with SLE and comparators were 29.8 and 9.9 per 100 person-years, respectively. These differences were present across sexes and age groups. Hospitalization rates were higher in patients with SLE after diagnosis and remained higher than comparators for the first 15 years of the disease. Patients with SLE were more likely than comparators to visit the ED (hazard ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.05–3.59). Readmission rates (32% vs. 21%, p = 0.017) were higher in patients with SLE. Length of stay and discharge destination were similar between both groups. Conclusion Patients with SLE were more likely to be hospitalized and to visit the ED than individuals without SLE, highlighting important inpatient care needs. Increased hospitalization rates were observed in both male and female patients and all age groups.

Abstract Objective Leucocyte immunoglobulin-like receptor A3 (LILRA3) belongs to a family of leucocyte receptors. Our previous study reported LILRA3 transcripts were markedly upregulated in neutrophils from patients with APS. We undertook this study to investigate clinical implications of LILRA3 in APS and its potential role in APS-associated thrombosis. Methods Two independent cohorts were studied. The first consisted of 294 APS patients, 48 asymptomatic aPL carriers and 150 healthy controls (HCs) from Peking University People’s Hospital. The second included 99 APS patients, 25 aPL carriers and 40 HCs from United States APS centres. Serum or plasma concentrations of LILRA3 and MPO-DNA complexes were measured. Additionally, 35 patients with thrombotic APS (tAPS) were evaluated to determine potential effects of immunosuppressive therapy on serum concentrations of LILRA3 and MPO-DNA complexes. Results Both positivity and serum concentration of LILRA3 were significantly increased in APS patients, especially in those with tAPS. LILRA3-positive tAPS patients displayed more severe thrombotic manifestations. Serum LILRA3 was positively correlated with MPO-DNA complexes in LILRA3-positive tAPS. After immunosuppressive treatment, LILRA3 and MPO-DNA complexes were consistently decreased in tAPS patients. Key findings from the Peking cohort were confirmed in the United States cohort. Conclusion Our study provides first evidence that LILRA3 is aberrantly expressed in APS, especially in patients with tAPS. Serum LILRA3 correlated with MPO-DNA complexes, and the two indices were consistently decreased in tAPS patients after treatment. LILRA3 may play a role in thrombosis of APS and may serve as a biomarker and/or therapeutic target in tAPS.