Search

Aim: To determine characteristics associated with more severe outcomes in a global registry of people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and COVID-19., Methods: People with SLE and COVID-19 reported in the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry from March 2020 to June 2021 were included. The ordinal outcome was defined as: (1) not hospitalised, (2) hospitalised with no oxygenation, (3) hospitalised with any ventilation or oxygenation and (4) death. A multivariable ordinal logistic regression model was constructed to assess the relationship between COVID-19 severity and demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medications and disease activity., Results: A total of 1606 people with SLE were included. In the multivariable model, older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.04), male sex (1.50, 1.01 to 2.23), prednisone dose (1-5 mg/day 1.86, 1.20 to 2.66, 6-9 mg/day 2.47, 1.24 to 4.86 and ≥10 mg/day 1.95, 1.27 to 2.99), no current treatment (1.80, 1.17 to 2.75), comorbidities (eg, kidney disease 3.51, 2.42 to 5.09, cardiovascular disease/hypertension 1.69, 1.25 to 2.29) and moderate or high SLE disease activity (vs remission; 1.61, 1.02 to 2.54 and 3.94, 2.11 to 7.34, respectively) were associated with more severe outcomes. In age-adjusted and sex-adjusted models, mycophenolate, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were associated with worse outcomes compared with hydroxychloroquine; outcomes were more favourable with methotrexate and belimumab., Conclusions: More severe COVID-19 outcomes in individuals with SLE are largely driven by demographic factors, comorbidities and untreated or active SLE. Patients using glucocorticoids also experienced more severe outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MFU-G has received research grants from Pfizer and Janssen, not related to this manuscript. AD-G is supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation (Scientist Development Award) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CR-S has received research grants from Janssen, not related to this manuscript. AEC has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS and GSK, all unrelated to this manuscript. LW has received consulting fees and speaker’s honoraria from Aurinia Pharma unrelated to this manuscript. GJP-E reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work, he reports personal consulting and/or speaking fees from Pfizer, GSK, Janssen and Sanofi (all

Aim: To validate the new classification criteria for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis in a real-life Peruvian cohort of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis patients., Methods: We reviewed medical records from a Peruvian tertiary care center from January 1990 to December 2019. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis was diagnosed based on the 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, the 2012 Chapel Hill Consensus Conference definitions, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) algorithm, and the clinical acumen of the treating rheumatologists. We classified all patients using the "former criteria" (the 1990 ACR criteria for granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and eosinophilic GPA [EGPA] and the 1994 Chapel Hill Consensus Conference definition for microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]), the EMEA algorithm, and the "new criteria" (the 2017 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism Provisional Criteria). The level of agreement (using Cohen κ) was calculated using the clinical diagnosis as the criterion standard., Results: We identified 212 patients, 12 of whom were excluded. One hundred fifty-four (77%) had MPA, 41 (20.5%) GPA, and 5 (2.5%) EGPA. The new criteria performed well for MPA (κ = 0.713) and EGPA (κ = 0.659), whereas the EMEA algorithm performed well for GPA (κ = 0.938). In the overall population, the new criteria showed better agreement (κ = 0.653) than the EMEA algorithm (κ = 0.506) and the former criteria (κ = 0.305)., Conclusions: The 2017 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism Provisional Criteria showed better agreement for the clinical diagnosis of all the patients overall and had the best performance for MPA and EGPA. The EMEA algorithm had the best performance for GPA., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)