Pons-Estel, Guillermo

Introduction Cognitive symptoms such as ‘brain fog’ are frequent and disabling in patients with SLE. We aimed to develop and validate the Lupus Brain Fog Severity Scale (LBFSS), the first patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for cognitive symptoms in SLE. Methods The LBFSS was developed using a multi-step international approach involving healthcare professionals and patients with SLE. Patients provided free-text descriptions of brain fog, generating candidate domains through thematic analysis (step 1). Domains were rated for relevance (step 2) and those retained converted into self-assessable items (step 3). The pilot LBFSS was iteratively refined (step 4). The finalised LBFSS was validated (step 5) in a large international SLE cohort. Psychometric evaluation included internal consistency, exploratory factor analysis and assessment of construct, convergent, known-groups and criterion-related validity. Results In step 1, 147 SLE participants across 39 countries generated 21 domains for cognitive symptoms, of which 13 were retained in consensus (step 2), converted into self-assessable items (step 3) and iteratively refined using patient and physician feedback. In step 5, validation of the LBFSS instrument in 378 patients from 36 countries demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.95) and a unidimensional structure explaining 62.2% of variance. LBFSS scores were significantly higher in participants reporting brain fog (p<0.0001), confirming known-group validity. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with functional impact and symptom severity (ρ=0.46–0.65, p<0.0001), strong convergent validity with the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-20 (ρ=0.84, p<0.0001) while the discriminative performance for presence versus absence of self-reported brain fog was high (area under the curve=0.85). Conclusion The LBFSS is a new, valid and feasible PROM to assess brain fog and cognitive symptoms in SLE.

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.