Duarte‐García, Alí

AbstractObjectiveTo estimate the incidence and time-to-classification of SLE by the 1997 ACR (ACR97) criteria, the SLICC criteria, and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology/ACR (EULAR/ACR) criteria.MethodsWe identified all incident SLE cases from 2000–2018 in the well-defined Olmsted County population. Clinical data included in the ACR97, SLICC and EULAR/ACR criteria were manually abstracted from medical records. All incident cases met at least one of the three classification criteria. Time-to-classification was estimated from the first documented lupus-attributable disease manifestation to the time of criteria fulfilment by each of the three definitions. Annual incidence rates were age or age/sex adjusted to the 2000 US population.ResultsOf 139 incident cases there were 126 cases by the EULAR/ACR criteria, corresponding to an age/sex-adjusted incidence of 4.5 per 100 000 population (95% CI: 3.7, 5.2). The age/sex-incidence was higher than that of the SLICC criteria (113 cases; 4.0 per 100 000 [95% CI: 3.3, 4.7], P = 0.020) and the ACR97 (92 cases; 3.3 per 100 000 [95% CI: 2.6, 3.9], P < 0.001). The median time from first disease manifestation to criteria fulfilment was shorter for the EULAR/ACR criteria (29.4 months) than the ACR97 criteria (47.0 months, P < 0.001) and similar to the SLICC criteria (30.6 months, P = 0.83).ConclusionThe incidence of SLE was higher by the EULAR/ACR criteria compared with the ACR97 and the SLICC criteria, and the EULAR/ACR criteria classified patients earlier that the ACR97 criteria but similar to the SLICC criteria.

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.

ObjectiveTo determine the incidence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a US population and describe trends in incidence and mortality over 5 decades.MethodsThe previously identified population‐based cohort that included Olmsted County, Minnesota residents ≥18 years of age who fulfilled PsA criteria during 1970–1999 was extended to include patients with incident PsA during 2000–2017. Age‐ and sex‐specific incidence rates and point prevalence, adjusted to the 2010 US White population, were reported.ResultsThere were 164 incident cases of PsA in 2000–2017 (mean ± SD age 46.4 ± 12.0 years; 47% female). The overall age‐ and sex‐adjusted annual incidence of PsA per 100,000 population was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 7.2–9.8) and was higher in men (9.3 [95% CI 7.4–11.3]) than women (7.7 [95% CI 5.9–9.4]) in 2000–2017. Overall incidence was highest in the 40–59 years age group. The incidence rate was relatively stable during 2000–2017, with no evidence of an overall increase or an increase in men only (but a modest increase of 3% per year in women), compared to 1970–1999 when a 4%‐per‐year increase in incidence was observed. Point prevalence was 181.8 per 100,000 population (95% CI 156.5–207.1) in 2015. The percentage of women among those with PsA increased from 39% in 1970–1999 and 41% in 2000–2009 to 54% in 2010–2017 (P = 0.08). Overall survival in PsA did not differ from the general population (standardized mortality ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.61–1.15]).ConclusionThe incidence of PsA in this predominantly White US population was stable in 2000–2017, in contrast to previous years. However, an increasing proportion of women with PsA was found in this study.

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), an acquired autoimmune thrombophilia, is characterised by thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies. The 16th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies Task Force on APS Treatment Trends reviewed the current status with regard to existing and novel treatment trends for APS, which is the focus of this Task Force report. The report addresses current treatments and developments since the last report, on the use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with APS, antiplatelet agents, adjunctive therapies (hydroxychloroquine, statins and vitamin D), targeted treatment including rituximab, belimumab, and anti-TNF agents, complement inhibition and drugs based on peptides of beta-2-glycoprotein I. In addition, the report summarises potential new players, including coenzyme Q10, adenosine receptor agonists and adenosine potentiation. In each case, the report provides recommendations for clinicians, based on the current state of the art, and suggests a clinical research agenda. The initiation and development of appropriate clinical studies requires a focus on devising suitable outcome measures, including a disease activity index, an optimal damage index, and a specific quality of life index.

ObjectiveAntirheumatic disease therapies have been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and its complications. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to describe the current evidence.MethodsA search of published and preprint databases in all languages was performed. Included studies described ≥1 relevant clinical outcome for ≥5 patients who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and were treated with antirheumatic disease therapy between January 1, 2019 and May 29, 2020. Pairs of reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A meta‐analysis of effect sizes using random‐effects models was performed when possible.ResultsThe search identified 3,935 articles, of which 45 were included (4 randomized controlled trials, 29 cohort studies, and 12 case series). All studies evaluated hospitalized patients, and 29 of the 45 studies had been published in a peer‐reviewed journal. In a meta‐analysis of 3 cohort studies with a low risk of bias, hydroxychloroquine use was not significantly associated with mortality (pooled hazard ratio [HR] 1.41 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.83, 2.42]). In a meta‐analysis of 2 cohort studies with some concerns/higher risk of bias, anakinra use was associated with lower mortality (pooled HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.12, 0.52]). Evidence was inconclusive with regard to other antirheumatic disease therapies, and the majority of other studies had a high risk of bias.ConclusionIn this systematic review and meta‐analysis, hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with benefit or harm regarding COVID‐19 mortality. The evidence supporting the effect of other antirheumatic disease therapies in COVID‐19 is currently inconclusive.