Search

ObjectiveSome patients with rheumatic diseases might be at higher risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to develop a prediction model for COVID-19 ARDS in this population and to create a simple risk score calculator for use in clinical settings.MethodsData were derived from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry from March 24, 2020, to May 12, 2021. Seven machine learning classifiers were trained on ARDS outcomes using 83 variables obtained at COVID-19 diagnosis. Predictive performance was assessed in a US test set and was validated in patients from four countries with independent registries using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A simple risk score calculator was developed using a regression model incorporating the most influential predictors from the best performing classifier.ResultsThe study included 8633 patients from 74 countries, of whom 523 (6%) had ARDS. Gradient boosting had the highest mean AUC (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.88) and was considered the top performing classifier. Ten predictors were identified as key risk factors and were included in a regression model. The regression model that predicted ARDS with 71% (95% CI: 61%-83%) sensitivity in the test set, and with sensitivities ranging from 61% to 80% in countries with independent registries, was used to develop the risk score calculator.ConclusionWe were able to predict ARDS with good sensitivity using information readily available at COVID-19 diagnosis. The proposed risk score calculator has the potential to guide risk stratification for treatments, such as monoclonal antibodies, that have potential to reduce COVID-19 disease progression.

BackgroundDifferences in the distribution of individual-level clinical risk factors across regions do not fully explain the observed global disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to investigate the associations between environmental and societal factors and country-level variations in mortality attributed to COVID-19 among people with rheumatic disease globally.MethodsIn this observational study, we derived individual-level data on adults (aged 18-99 years) with rheumatic disease and a confirmed status of their highest COVID-19 severity level from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) registry, collected between March 12, 2020, and Aug 27, 2021. Environmental and societal factors were obtained from publicly available sources. The primary endpoint was mortality attributed to COVID-19. We used a multivariable logistic regression to evaluate independent associations between environmental and societal factors and death, after controlling for individual-level risk factors. We used a series of nested mixed-effects models to establish whether environmental and societal factors sufficiently explained country-level variations in death.Findings14 044 patients from 23 countries were included in the analyses. 10 178 (72·5%) individuals were female and 3866 (27·5%) were male, with a mean age of 54·4 years (SD 15·6). Air pollution (odds ratio 1·10 per 10 μg/m3 [95% CI 1·01-1·17]; p=0·0105), proportion of the population aged 65 years or older (1·19 per 1% increase [1·10-1·30]; p

AimTo determine characteristics associated with more severe outcomes in a global registry of people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and COVID-19.MethodsPeople 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsMore 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.

BackgroundPatients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica might be at a high risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes due to the treatments used, the potential organ damage cause by primary systemic vasculitis, and the demographic factors associated with these conditions. We therefore aimed to investigate factors associated with COVID-19 outcomes in patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and April 12, 2021, who had a history of primary systemic vasculitis (antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody [ANCA]-associated vasculitis, giant cell arteritis, Behçet's syndrome, or other vasculitis) or polymyalgia rheumatica, and were reported to the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry were included. To assess COVID-19 outcomes in patients, we used an ordinal COVID-19 severity scale, defined as: (1) no hospitalisation; (2) hospitalisation without supplemental oxygen; (3) hospitalisation with any supplemental oxygen or ventilation; or (4) death. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs), adjusting for age, sex, time period, number of comorbidities, smoking status, obesity, glucocorticoid use, disease activity, region, and medication category. Analyses were also stratified by type of rheumatic disease.FindingsOf 1202 eligible patients identified in the registry, 733 (61·0%) were women and 469 (39·0%) were men, and their mean age was 63·8 years (SD 17·1). A total of 374 (31·1%) patients had polymyalgia rheumatica, 353 (29·4%) had ANCA-associated vasculitis, 183 (15·2%) had giant cell arteritis, 112 (9·3%) had Behçet's syndrome, and 180 (15·0%) had other vasculitis. Of 1020 (84·9%) patients with outcome data, 512 (50·2%) were not hospitalised, 114 (11·2%) were hospitalised and did not receive supplemental oxygen, 239 (23·4%) were hospitalised and received ventilation or supplemental oxygen, and 155 (15·2%) died. A higher odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes were observed in patients who were older (per each additional decade of life OR 1·44 [95% CI 1·31-1·57]), were male compared with female (1·38 [1·05-1·80]), had more comorbidities (per each additional comorbidity 1·39 [1·23-1·58]), were taking 10 mg/day or more of prednisolone compared with none (2·14 [1·50-3·04]), or had moderate, or high or severe disease activity compared with those who had disease remission or low disease activity (2·12 [1·49-3·02]). Risk factors varied among different disease subtypes.InterpretationAmong patients with primary systemic vasculitis and polymyalgia rheumatica, severe COVID-19 outcomes were associated with variable and largely unmodifiable risk factors, such as age, sex, and number of comorbidities, as well as treatments, including high-dose glucocorticoids. Our results could be used to inform mitigation strategies for patients with these diseases.FundingAmerican College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

ObjectiveTo investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders.ResultsOf 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity.ConclusionsPeople with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people.

ObjectivesTo determine factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases.MethodsPhysician-reported registry of adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19 (from 24 March to 1 July 2020). The primary outcome was COVID-19-related death. Age, sex, smoking status, comorbidities, rheumatic disease diagnosis, disease activity and medications were included as covariates in multivariable logistic regression models. Analyses were further stratified according to rheumatic disease category.ResultsOf 3729 patients (mean age 57 years, 68% female), 390 (10.5%) died. Independent factors associated with COVID-19-related death were age (66-75 years: OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.22; >75 years: 6.18, 4.47 to 8.53; both vs ≤65 years), male sex (1.46, 1.11 to 1.91), hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease (1.89, 1.31 to 2.73), chronic lung disease (1.68, 1.26 to 2.25) and prednisolone-equivalent dosage >10 mg/day (1.69, 1.18 to 2.41; vs no glucocorticoid intake). Moderate/high disease activity (vs remission/low disease activity) was associated with higher odds of death (1.87, 1.27 to 2.77). Rituximab (4.04, 2.32 to 7.03), sulfasalazine (3.60, 1.66 to 7.78), immunosuppressants (azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, ciclosporin, mycophenolate or tacrolimus: 2.22, 1.43 to 3.46) and not receiving any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) (2.11, 1.48 to 3.01) were associated with higher odds of death, compared with methotrexate monotherapy. Other synthetic/biological DMARDs were not associated with COVID-19-related death.ConclusionAmong people with rheumatic disease, COVID-19-related death was associated with known general factors (older age, male sex and specific comorbidities) and disease-specific factors (disease activity and specific medications). The association with moderate/high disease activity highlights the importance of adequate disease control with DMARDs, preferably without increasing glucocorticoid dosages. Caution may be required with rituximab, sulfasalazine and some immunosuppressants.

Objectives Adults with RA are being switched from etanercept originator to biosimilar in non-medical/cost-saving switching. This analysis aims to investigate outcomes in these patients, including (i) drug survival and (ii) disease activity at 6 months and 12 months, compared with those who remain on the originator. Methods Using BSRBR-RA, those who switched directly from etanercept originator to biosimilar were identified and matched to patients receiving the originator, based on gender, age, disease duration and originator start year. Drug survival was calculated; Cox-proportional hazard models assessed differences in drug persistence between those who switched vs remaining on originator. Change in DAS28 after 6 months and 12 months was compared between cohorts. Multiple imputation was used. Results A total of 1024 adults with RA switching from etanercept originator to biosimilar were included, with a matched cohort of patients remaining on the originator. Patients who switched onto a biosimilar product were no more likely to discontinue etanercept treatment vs those who remained on the originator; hazard ratio 1.06 (95%CI 0.89–1.26), with 65% of patients remaining on treatment at three years. Ninety-five (9%) patients switched back to the originator within the first year. After 6 months and 12 months, biosimilar patients were no more likely to have a worsening of DAS28 (>0.6 units) compared with those who remained on the originator. Conclusions This is the largest matched comparative effectiveness analysis showing patients switching from etanercept originator to biosimilar appearing to do just as well with regard to disease activity and drug persistence compared with those who remained on the originator. These data will be reassuring to clinicians and patients regarding non-medical switching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus a non‐TNFi biologic following discontinuation of a TNFi for patients with polyarticular‐course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA). Methods: Using the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, patients with pJIA who started receiving a second biologic following a first TNFi were identified. Patients were required to have no active uveitis on the index date and a visit six months after the index date. Outcome measures included Clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score with a maximum of 10 active joints (cJADAS10), cJADAS10 inactive disease (ID; ≤2.5) and cJADAS10 minimal disease activity (MiDA; ≤5). Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated using propensity score quintiles to compare outcomes at six months following second biologic initiation. Results: There were 216 patients included, 84% initially received etanercept, and most patients stopped receiving it because of its ineffectiveness (74%). A total of 183 (85%) started receiving a second TNFi, and 33 (15%) started receiving a non‐TNFi. Adalimumab was the most common second biologic received (71% overall, 84% of second TNFi), and tocilizumab was the most common non‐TNFi second biologic received (9% overall, 58% of non‐TNFi). There was no difference between receiving TNFi versus non‐TNFi in cJADAS10 ID (29% vs 25%; aOR 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47–3.20) or at least MiDA (43% vs 39%; aOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.47–2.62) at six months. Conclusion: Most patients with pJIA started receiving TNFi rather than non‐TNFi as their second biologic, and there were no differences in disease activity at six months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate if and how the incidence of serious infection (SI) and active tuberculosis (TB) differ among seven biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients with RA considering the line of therapy. Methods Patients with RA from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) cohort who initiated etanercept, certolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab or tocilizumab from the first to fifth line of therapy were included. Follow-up extended up to 3 years. The primary outcome was SI and the secondary outcome was TB. Event rates were calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazards models, controlling for confounding with inverse probability of treatment weights. Comparisons were made overall and stratified by line of therapy. Sensitivity analysis was restricted to all treatment courses from 2009 (tocilizumab availability) until the end of the study (2018). Results Among 33 897 treatment courses (62 513 patient-years) the incidence of SI was 4.4/100 patient-years (95% CI 4.2, 4.5). After adjustment, hazards ratios (HRs) of SI were slightly higher with adalimumab and infliximab compared with etanercept. However, no clear pattern was observed when stratifying by line of therapy in terms of incidence rate or HR. Sensitivity analyses showed similar HRs among these treatments. Regarding TB, all 49 cases occurred during the first three lines of treatment and rarely since 2009. Conclusion The risk of serious infections does not appear to be influenced by the line of therapy in patients with RA. However, the risk of TB seems to be more frequent during the initial lines of treatment or prior to 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To investigate the association between socioeconomic deprivation and outcomes following TNF inhibitor (TNFi) treatment. Methods Individuals commencing their first TNFi in the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for RA (BSRBR-RA) and Biologics in RA Genetics and Genomics Study Syndicate (BRAGGSS) cohort were included. Socioeconomic deprivation was proxied using the Index of Multiple Deprivation and categorized as 20% most deprived, middle 40% or 40% least deprived. DAS28-derived outcomes at 6 months (BSRBR-RA) and 3 months (BRAGGSS) were compared using regression models with the least deprived as referent. Risks of all-cause and cause-specific drug discontinuation were compared using Cox models in the BSRBR-RA. Additional analyses adjusted for lifestyle factors (e.g. smoking, BMI) as potential mediators. Results 16 085 individuals in the BSRBR-RA were included (mean age 56 years, 76% female), of whom 18%, 41% and 41% were in the most, middle and least deprived groups, respectively. Of 3459 included in BRAGGSS (mean age 57, 77% female), proportions were 22%, 36% and 41%, respectively. The most deprived group had 0.3-unit higher 6-month DAS28 (95% CI 0.22, 0.37) and were less likely to achieve low disease activity (odds ratio [OR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.68, 0.84) in unadjusted models. Results were similar for 3-month DAS28 (β = 0.23; 95% CI 0.11, 0.36) and low disease activity (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63, 0.94). The most deprived were more likely to discontinue treatment (hazard ratio 1.18; 95% CI 1.12, 1.25), driven by ineffectiveness rather than adverse events. Adjusted estimates were generally attenuated. Conclusion Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with reduced response to TNFi. Improvements in determinants of health other than lifestyle factors are needed to address socioeconomic inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Etanercept biosimilars show comparable efficacy to their originators among biologic-naïve patients with RA in randomized controlled trials. Nationwide guidelines have obligated prescribing of etanercept biosimilars from 2016, resulting in significant cost savings. This analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of etanercept originator vs etanercept biosimilar amongst biologic-naïve RA patients treated in routine clinical practice in the UK. Methods Biologic-naïve RA patients starting etanercept in the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Rhematoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) cohort study from 2010 were included. Data collected at start of therapy includes patient demographics and disease activity. Follow-up data includes changes in disease activity and anti-rheumatic therapy. Six- and 12-month primary outcomes include DAS for 28-joints (DAS28) remission, EULAR response and minimal clinically important difference in function. Etanercept drug survival was assessed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression, including reasons for treatment withdrawal. Multiple imputation accounted for missing data. Propensity-decile adjustment was used to account for confounding by indication. Results A total of 1806 biologic-naïve RA patients started etanercept: 1009 originator, 797 biosimilar. At 6 and 12 months, the proportion of patients achieving DAS28 remission and EULAR response were similar between treatments. During follow-up, 19% of originator patients switched onto etanercept biosimilar. Patients were censored at time of switch. Patients on originator were no more likely to stop therapy vs biosimilar; 71% of originator and 76% of biosimilar patients remained on therapy at 1 year. Conclusions In one of the largest analyses of patients with RA, biologic-naïve RA patients treated with etanercept originator showed similar outcomes vs biosimilar using real-world data. Drug survival, and disease activity after 6 and 12 months of therapy, was similar between cohorts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Clinicians concerned about long-term safety of biologics in JIA may consider tapering or stopping treatment once remission is achieved despite uncertainty in maintaining drug-free remission. This analysis aims to (i) calculate how many patients with JIA stop biologics for remission, (ii) calculate how many later re-start therapy and after how long, and (iii) identify factors associated with re-starting biologics. Methods Patients starting biologics between 1 January 2010 and 7 September 2021 in the UK JIA Biologics Register were included. Patients stopping biologics for physician-reported remission, those re-starting biologics and factors associated with re-starting, were identified. Multiple imputation accounted for missing data. Results Of 1451 patients with median follow-up of 2.7 years (IQR 1.4, 4.0), 269 (19%) stopped biologics for remission after a median of 2.2 years (IQR 1.7, 3.0). Of those with follow-up data (N = 220), 118 (54%) later re-started therapy after a median of 4.7 months, with 84% re-starting the same biologic. Patients on any-line tocilizumab (prior to stopping) were less likely to re-start biologics (vs etanercept; odds ratio [OR] 0.3; 95% CI: 0.2, 0.7), while those with a longer disease duration prior to biologics (OR 1.1 per year increase; 95% CI: 1.0, 1.2) or prior uveitis were more likely to re-start biologics (OR 2.5; 95% CI: 1.3, 4.9). Conclusions This analysis identified factors associated with successful cessation of biologics for remission in JIA as absence of uveitis, prior treatment with tocilizumab and starting biologics earlier in the disease course. Further research is needed to guide clinical recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives This study aimed to measure (1) the proportion of children who continue to receive specialist care (rheumatology/ophthalmology) as adults, (2) the characteristics associated with continuing specialist care, and (3) the frequency of specialist care appointments in both paediatric and adult services. Methods A retrospective cohort of young people with JIA was identified from UK primary care electronic health records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2018. To be included in the study, cases needed to have at least 1 year of registration at their general practice beyond age 18 and linkage to Hospital Episodes Statistics data for secondary care information. All specialist care outpatient visits were identified from Hospital Episodes Statistics outpatient data. Results There were 666 young people included in the study. Of these, 427 (64%) received specialist care beyond age 18, 90 (13%) had their last recorded contact at 16–17 years and 149 (22%) did not continue after 16 years. Older age at diagnosis, female gender, less deprivation and a childhood diagnosis of uveitis were associated with continuing specialist care beyond age 18. Of those continuing beyond 18, 35% (n  = 153) were subsequently discharged by the study end date. Of all those discharged, 32% had a missed appointment recorded after the last attended visit, suggesting failure to attend. Conclusions Two-thirds of young people with JIA continue to receive specialist care beyond age 18. This is useful information for children and young people with JIA and their families planning for their future, and for clinicians planning health-care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop and externally validate a prediction model for new‐onset chronic uveitis in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) for clinical application. Methods: Data from the international Pharmachild registry were used to develop a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Predictors were selected by backward selection, and missing values were handled by multiple imputation. The model was subsequently validated and recalibrated in 2 inception cohorts: the UK Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study (CAPS) study and the German Inception Cohort of Newly diagnosed patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (ICON) study. Model performance was evaluated by calibration plots and C statistics for the 2‐, 4‐, and 7‐year risk of uveitis. A diagram and digital risk calculator were created for use in clinical practice. Results: A total of 5,393 patients were included for model development, and predictor variables were age at JIA onset (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.77–0.89]), ANA positivity (HR 1.59 [95% CI 1.06–2.38]), and International League of Associations for Rheumatology category of JIA (HR for oligoarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and undifferentiated arthritis versus rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis 1.40 [95% CI 0.91–2.16]). Performance of the recalibrated prediction model in the validation cohorts was acceptable; calibration plots indicated good calibration and C statistics for the 7‐year risk of uveitis (0.75 [95% CI 0.72–0.79] for the ICON cohort and 0.70 [95% CI 0.64–0.76] for the CAPS cohort). Conclusion: We present for the first time a validated prognostic tool for easily predicting chronic uveitis risk for individual JIA patients using common clinical parameters. This model could be used by clinicians to inform patients/parents and provide guidance in choice of uveitis screening frequency and arthritis drug therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]