Search

Objectives: This study aims to determine the independent impact of definitions of remission/low disease activity (LDA) on direct/indirect costs (DCs, ICs) in a multicentre inception cohort., Methods: Patients from 31 centres in 10 countries were enrolled within 15 months of diagnosis and assessed annually. Five mutually exclusive disease activity states (DAS) were defined as (1) remission off-treatment: clinical (c) SLEDAI-2K=0, without prednisone/immunosuppressants; (2) remission on-treatment: cSLEDAI-2K=0, prednisone ≤5 mg/day and/or maintenance immunosuppressants; (3) LDA-Toronto Cohort (TC): cSLEDAI-2K≤2, without prednisone/immunosuppressants; (4) modified lupus LDA state (mLLDAS): SLEDAI-2K≤4, no activity in major organs/systems, no new activity, prednisone ≤7.5 mg/day and/or maintenance immunosuppressants and (5) active: all remaining assessments.At each assessment, patients were stratified into the most stringent DAS fulfilled and the proportion of time in a DAS since cohort entry was determined. Annual DCs/ICs (2021 Canadian dollars) were based on healthcare use and lost workforce/non-workforce productivity over the preceding year.The association between the proportion of time in a DAS and annual DC/IC was examined through multivariable random-effects linear regressions., Results: 1692 patients were followed a mean of 9.7 years; 49.0% of assessments were active. Remission/LDA (per 25% increase in time in a remission/LDA state vs active) were associated with lower annual DC/IC: remission off-treatment (DC -$C1372; IC -$C2507), remission on-treatment (DC -$C973; IC -$C2604,) LDA-TC (DC -$C1158) and mLLDAS (DC -$C1040). There were no cost differences between remission/LDA states., Conclusions: Our data suggest that systemic lupus erythematosus patients who achieve remission, both off and on-therapy, and reductions in disease activity incur lower costs than those experiencing persistent disease activity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MRWB has received consulting fees, speaking fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen and Sanofi Genzyme. MFU-G has received consulting and/or speaking fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Ferrer and a research grant from Janssen. CG has received consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Amgen, Sanofi, and UCB (less than $10 000 each). DJW has received consulting fees from Merck, EMD Serono, Pfizer, Lilly and Glenmark (less than $10 000 each). PRF has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (less than $10 000 each). DDG received consulting fees and/or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca (less than $10 000). INB has received consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from Eli Lilly, UCB, Roche, Merck Serono, MedImmune (less than $10 000 each) and grants from UCB, Genzyme Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline. EMG has paid consultation with investment analysts Guidepoint Global Gerson Lerman Group. RR-G has received consulting fees from Cabaletta, BristolMyersSquibb, Biogen, Merck, and Ampel Solutions (all less than $10 000 each). RFvV has received consulting fees, speaking fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB (less than $10 000 each) and research support from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and UCB. MI has received consulting fees from UCB and Amgen (less than $10 000 each). KK has received grants from UCB, Human Genome Sciences/GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Kyowa Hakko Kirin, and has received consulting fees from Exagen Diagnostics, Genentech, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Anthera (less than $10 000 each). AEC has received consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from AstraZeneca, BristolMyersSquibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche and Otsuka (less than $10 000 each) and a research grant from GlaxoSmithKline. No other disclosures relevant to this article were reported., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ on behalf of EULAR.)

Background: The metabolic syndrome (MetS) may contribute to the increased cardiovascular risk in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We examined the association between MetS and disease activity, disease phenotype and corticosteroid exposure over time in patients with SLE., Methods: Recently diagnosed (<15 months) patients with SLE from 30 centres across 11 countries were enrolled into the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) Inception Cohort from 2000 onwards. Baseline and annual assessments recorded clinical, laboratory and therapeutic data. A longitudinal analysis of factors associated with MetS in the first 2 years of follow-up was performed using random effects logistic regression., Results: We studied 1150 patients with a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (13.6) years and disease duration at enrolment of 24.2 (18.0) weeks. In those with complete data, MetS prevalence was 38.2% at enrolment, 34.8% at year 1 and 35.4% at year 2. In a multivariable random effects model that included data from all visits, prior MetS status, baseline renal disease, SLICC Damage Index >1, higher disease activity, increasing age and Hispanic or Black African race/ethnicity were independently associated with MetS over the first 2 years of follow-up in the cohort., Conclusions: MetS is a persistent phenotype in a significant proportion of patients with SLE. Renal lupus, active inflammatory disease and damage are SLE-related factors that drive MetS development while antimalarial agents appear to be protective from early in the disease course., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)