RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of data regarding health care costs associated with damage accrual in systemic lupus erythematosus. The present study was undertaken to describe costs associated with damage states across the disease course using multistate modeling. METHODS: Patients from 33 centers in 11 countries were enrolled in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) inception cohort within 15 months of diagnosis. Annual data on demographics, disease activity, damage (SLICC/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index [SDI]), hospitalizations, medications, dialysis, and selected procedures were collected. Ten-year cumulative costs (Canadian dollars) were estimated by multiplying annual costs associated with each SDI state by the expected state duration using a multistate model. RESULTS: A total of 1,687 patients participated; 88.7% were female, 49.0% were white, mean ± SD age at diagnosis was 34.6 ± 13.3 years, and mean time to follow-up was 8.9 years (range 0.6-18.5 years). Mean annual costs were higher for those with higher SDI scores as follows: $22,006 (Canadian) (95% confidence interval [95% CI] $16,662, $27,350) for SDI scores ≥5 versus $1,833 (95% CI $1,134, $2,532) for SDI scores of 0. Similarly, 10-year cumulative costs were higher for those with higher SDI scores at the beginning of the 10-year interval as follows: $189,073 (Canadian) (95% CI $142,318, $235,827) for SDI scores ≥5 versus $21,713 (95% CI $13,639, $29,788) for SDI scores of 0. CONCLUSION: Patients with the highest SDI scores incur 10-year cumulative costs that are ~9-fold higher than those with the lowest SDI scores. By estimating the damage trajectory and incorporating annual costs, data on damage can be used to estimate future costs, which is critical knowledge for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of novel therapies.
Asunto(s)
Antirreumáticos/economía , Antirreumáticos/uso terapéutico , Costos de los Medicamentos , Glucocorticoides/economía , Glucocorticoides/uso terapéutico , Inmunosupresores/economía , Inmunosupresores/uso terapéutico , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico/tratamiento farmacológico , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico/economía , Adulto , Antirreumáticos/efectos adversos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Glucocorticoides/efectos adversos , Humanos , Inmunosupresores/efectos adversos , Estudios Longitudinales , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico/diagnóstico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos Económicos , Inducción de Remisión , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The spectrum of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) is changing to include both nuclear staining as well as cytoplasmic and mitotic cell patterns (CMPs) and accordingly a change is occurring in terminology to anticellular antibodies. This study examined the prevalence of indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) anticellular antibody staining using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort. METHODS: Anticellular antibodies were detected by IIF on HEp-2000 substrate using the baseline serum. Three serologic subsets were examined: ANA positive (presence of either nuclear or mixed nuclear/CMP staining), anticellular antibody negative (absence of any intracellular staining), and isolated CMP staining. The odds of being anticellular antibody negative versus ANA or isolated CMP positive was assessed by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,137 patients were included; 1,049 (92.3%) were ANA positive, 71 (6.2%) were anticellular antibody negative, and 17 (1.5%) had an isolated CMP. The isolated CMP-positive group did not differ from the ANA-positive or anticellular antibody-negative groups in clinical, demographic, or serologic features. Patients who were older (odds ratio [OR] 1.02 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.00, 1.04]), of white race/ethnicity (OR 3.53 [95% CI 1.77, 7.03]), or receiving high-dose glucocorticoids at or prior to enrollment (OR 2.39 [95% CI 1.39, 4.12]) were more likely to be anticellular antibody negative. Patients on immunosuppressants (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.19, 0.64]) or with anti-SSA/Ro 60 (OR 0.41 [95% CI 0.23, 0.74]) or anti-U1 RNP (OR 0.43 [95% CI 0.20, 0.93]) were less likely to be anticellular antibody negative. CONCLUSION: In newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus, 6.2% of patients were anticellular antibody negative, and 1.5% had an isolated CMP. The prevalence of anticellular antibody-negative systemic lupus erythematosus will likely decrease as emerging nomenclature guidelines recommend that non-nuclear patterns should also be reported as a positive ANA.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Antinucleares/sangre , Técnica del Anticuerpo Fluorescente Indirecta , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico/diagnóstico , Pruebas Serológicas , Adulto , Biomarcadores/sangre , Femenino , Glucocorticoides/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Inmunosupresores/uso terapéutico , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico/sangre , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico/tratamiento farmacológico , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico/inmunología , Masculino , Mitosis , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , PronósticoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) as induction treatment for lupus nephritis (LN), by race, ethnicity and geographical region. METHODS: A total of 370 patients with active Class III-V LN received MMF (target dose 3.0 g/day) or IVC (0.5-1.0 g/m(2)/month), plus tapered prednisone, for 24 weeks. Renal function, global disease activity, immunological complement (C3 and C4) and anti-dsDNA levels are the outcomes that were assessed in this study. RESULTS: MMF was not superior to IVC as induction treatment (primary objective). There were important pre-specified interactions between treatment and race (P = 0.047) and treatment and region (P = 0.069) (primary endpoint). MMF and IVC response rates were similar for Asians (53.2 vs 63.9%; P = 0.24) and Whites (56.0 vs 54.2%; P = 0.83), but differed in the combined Other and Black group (60.4 vs 38.5%; P = 0.03). Fewer patients in the Black (40 vs 53.9%; P = 0.39) and Hispanic (38.8 vs 60.9%; P = 0.011) groups responded to IVC. Latin American patients had lower response to IVC (32 vs 60.7%; P = 0.003). Baseline disease characteristics were not predictive of response. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar across groups. Serious AEs were slightly more prevalent among Asians. CONCLUSIONS: MMF and IVC have similar efficacy overall to short-term induction therapy for LN. However, race, ethnicity and geographical region may affect treatment response; more Black and Hispanic patients responded to MMF than IVC. As these factors are inter-related, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about their importance.