Severe COVID-19 in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases: a stratified analysis from the SORCOM multicenter registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate risk factors for severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases, stratified by systemic autoimmune conditions and chronic inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional multicenter study was performed. Patients from 10 Rheumatology departments in Madrid who presented with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 2020 and May 2021 were included. The main outcome was COVID-19 severity (hospital admission or mortality). Risk factors for severity were estimated, adjusting for covariates (sociodemographic, clinical and treatments), using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: 523 patients with COVID-19 were included, among whom 192 (35.6%) patients required hospital admission and 38 (7.3%) died. Male gender, older age and comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension and obesity were associated with severe COVID-19. Corticosteroid doses over 10 mg/day, rituximab, sulfasalazine and mycophenolate use, were independently associated with worse outcomes. COVID-19 severity decreased over the different pandemic waves. Mortality was higher in the systemic autoimmune conditions (univariate analysis, p<0.001), although there were no differences in overall severity in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms and provides new insights regarding the harmful effects of corticosteroids, rituximab and other therapies (mycophenolate and sulfasalazine) in COVID-19. Methotrexate and anti-TNF therapy were not associated with worse outcomes.

Disease activity indexes might not capture the same disease aspects in males and females with ankylosing spondylitis: A real-world nationwide analysis.

Background: To evaluate gender differences in disease activity and health status (HS) in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA)/ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods: Ancillary analysis of the MIDAS study, an observational, non-interventional, cross-sectional and retrospective multicenter nationwide study to assess disease activity and its relationship with HS in clinical practice. Adult patients with AS diagnosis, fulfilling ASAS and modified New York criteria, treated for ≥3 months upon study inclusion according to clinical practice were included. The primary outcome was "disease control" assessed by the percentage of patients in remission and low disease activity (BASDAI and ASDAS-CRP scores). HS was evaluated using the ASAS health index (ASAS-HI). Patients' responses and characteristics were analyzed by gender. Results: We analyzed 313 patients with AS, 237 (75.7%) males and 76 (24.3%) females. A total of 202 (64.5%) patients had adequate disease control (BASDAI < 4); 69.2% of males [mean (SD) BASDAI 2.9 (2.1)] and 50.0% of females [mean (SD) BASDAI 3.8 (2.4); p = 0.01]. According to ASDAS-CRP, 57.5% of patients were adequately controlled (ASDAS-ID +ASDAS-LDA); 138 (58.2%) males and 42 (55.3%) females. The mean (SD) ASDAS-CRP was 1.9 (1.1); being 1.9 (1.0) in males and 2.0 (1.1) in females. Overall, the impact of AS on HS was low to moderate [mean (SD) ASAS-HI 5.8 (4.4)]; being 5.5 (4.4) for males and 6.8 (4.2) for females (p = 0.02). Conclusion: This study showed a higher proportion of females with AS and active disease using the BASDAI definition. When using the ASDAS-CRP definition these differences by gender were less pronounced. The impact of disease activity on HS appears to be higher in females than males.

Influence of prognosis factors on the prescription of targeted treatments in rheumatoid arthritis: A Delphi survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore current evidence on the management of poor prognostic factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to investigate whether this evidence is taken into account by clinicians when deciding on treatment in daily clinical practice. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) to analyse the effects of currently available biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) on the classically accepted poor prognostic factors of RA. All randomized controlled trials reporting subgroup analyses about effects on prognostic factors were identified and synthesized. In a second phase, a two-round Delphi survey was carried out to contrast the SLR results with the grade of agreement of a large group of rheumatologists about the effectiveness of each drug class on each prognostic factor. RESULTS: According to the Delphi results, the only prognostic factor that significantly influenced the selection of treatment was the presence of interstitial lung disease (ILD), being the preferred treatment in this scenario abatacept or rituximab. The rest of the poor prognostic factors (including high disease activity at baseline, disability as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire index, seropositivity, elevated acute-phase reactants, and evidence of erosions based on plain radiography or ultrasonography) did not seem to significantly influence rheumatologists when choosing a treatment. The results of the SLR results did not show solid evidence regarding the use of any specific therapy in the management of patients with specific poor factors, except in the case of RA-ILD, although the data in the literature in this regard are not free of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The only prognostic factor that seems to significantly influence the selection of treatment is the presence of RA-ILD.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in patients with seropositive, erosive early rheumatoid arthritis in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The AMPLE (Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE RA subjects with background methotrexate) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept with adalimumab. A post hoc analysis showed improved efficacy for abatacept in patients with versus without seropositive, erosive early RA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost per response (ACR20/50/70/90 and HAQ-DI) and patient in remission (DAS28-CRP, CDAI, and SDAI) for abatacept relative to adalimumab, in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada. METHODS: A previously published model was used to compare abatacept and adalimumab in a cohort of 1000 patients over 2 years. Clinical inputs were updated based on two subpopulations from the AMPLE trial. Cohort 1 included patients with early RA (disease duration ≤ 6 months), RF and/or ACPA seropositivity, and > 1 radiographic erosion. Cohort 2 included patients with RA in whom at least one of these criteria was absent. RESULTS: For cohort 1, all incremental costs per additional health gain (patient response or patient in remission) favoured abatacept in all countries, except for DAS28-CRP remission in Canada. Cost savings versus adalimumab were greater when more stringent response criteria were applied and also in cohort 1 patient (versus cohort 2 patients). CONCLUSION: The cost per responder and patient in remission favoured abatacept in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA across all the countries. In this patient population, the use of abatacept instead of adalimumab can lead to lower costs in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada.

Use of prognostic factors of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice and perception of their predictive capacity before and after exposure to evidence.

The aim of the study is to benchmark the use and attributed importance of well-established prognostic factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice, and to contrast the use of factors with their ability to predict outcome. Medline was searched (inception-Sep. 2016) for systematic reviews on factors predicting death, disability, structural damage or remission in RA. All factors identified were compiled in a matrix of factors × outcomes, and scoping reviews for each cell were then performed. A survey to 42 rheumatologists randomly selected explored the use of the list of prognostic factors and inquired about the perceived strength of association with poor prognosis. In a second round, participants were exposed to evidence from the matrix and to responses from other participants. Change on perceived strength of association was evaluated. Rheumatologists report using prognostic factors in clinical practice on a daily basis. Very young onset, joint counts at diagnosis, rheumatoid factor, ACPA, and radiographic erosions are used frequently and correctly recognized as strong predictors. Comorbidities and other associated problems, such as obesity, low bone mineral density, cardiovascular disease, or extra-articular manifestations, are perceived as moderately associated to prognosis but, nevertheless, rheumatologists also use them profusely. Genetic and other biomarkers and osteitis by magnetic resonance are less accessible in daily practice and they obtained better results on second round (probably after knowing the strength of association with prognosis). Rheumatologists use widely most prognostic factors with a strong predictive value. However, factors with low evidence of prognostic value are also used and some factors are not used despite good evidence.

Biologic Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug attributes in the first lines of treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. 2015 ACORDAR project. / Atributos del fármaco antirreumático modificador de la enfermedad biológico en las primeras líneas de tratamiento de la artritis reumatoide. Proyecto ACORDAR 2015.

OBJECTIVE: To date, between 17% and 35% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond as expected to the initial biological therapy. The objective of this project is to recognize and weigh the attributes of biologic DMARD (bDMARD) to identify the most appropriate for each case, in the first lines of treatment of RA (after inadequate response to at least one synthetic DMARD or previous bDMARD). METHODS: To recognize the possible attributes that could define the bDMARD, we performed a systematic search of the literature that recognized the possible attributes involving general aspects, pharmacology, efficacy, safety, management, and cost. Then a Delphi process was conducted with two rounds among a group of selected expert rheumatologists in the management of RA indicating the degree of agreement with the attributes identified in the literature. The project was completed between February and September 2015, indicating the degree of importance that was ascribed to each attribute. Two criteria were applied to determine the consistency of results: 1) based on the median and interquartile range; and 2) on the simultaneous compliance with mean, median, standard deviation, interquartile range and coefficient of variation. The agreement and final ratification of the expert panel were also determined. RESULTS: Eighty-three Spanish rheumatologists participated and completed both rounds of the Delphi process. In no case was the importance of the 77 attributes identified considered to be low; 75 of 77 (97.4%) were considered highly important and 76 of 77 (98.7%) were ratified. Fifteen attributes had the support of 100% of the working group. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of agreement concerning the selected attributes. Fifteen of them had the support of 100% of the working group and could be considered the definition of the ideal bDMARD in the first lines of RA treatment.

Consensus statement on a framework for the management of comorbidity and extra-articular manifestations in rheumatoid arthritis.

The objective of the study was to develop evidence-based and practical recommendations for the detection and management of comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily practice. We used a modified RAND/UCLA methodology and systematic review (SR). The process map and specific recommendations, based on the SR, were established in discussion groups. A two round Delphi survey permitted (1) to prioritize the recommendations, (2) to refine them, and (3) to evaluate their agreement by a large group of users. The recommendations cover: (1) which comorbidities should be investigated in clinical practice at the first and following visits (including treatments, risk factors and patient's features that might interfere with RA management); (2) how and when should comorbidities and risk factors be investigated; (3) how to manage specific comorbidities, related or non-related to RA, including major adverse events of RA treatment, and to promote health (general and musculoskeletal health); and (4) specific recommendations to assure an integral care approach for RA patients with any comorbidity, such as health care models for chronic inflammatory patients, early arthritis units, relationships with primary care, specialized nursing care, and self-management. These recommendations are intended to guide rheumatologists, patients, and other stakeholders, on the early diagnosis and management of comorbidity in RA, in order to improve disease outcomes.

Validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness of a twelve-joint simplified power doppler ultrasonographic assessment of joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness of a simplified power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) assessment of joint inflammation compared with a comprehensive 44-joint PDUS assessment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who started therapy with a biologic agent. METHODS: A total of 160 patients with active RA who started a biologic agent were prospectively recruited in 18 Spanish centers. The patients underwent clinical and laboratory assessment and blinded PDUS examination at baseline and 6 months. A PDUS examination of 128 synovial sites in 44 joints was performed. US synovitis and PD signal were semiquantitatively graded from 1 to 3 in all synovial sites. US count and index for synovitis and PD signal were obtained. PDUS intraobserver and interobserver reliability were evaluated. A process of data reduction based on the frequency of involvement of synovial sites by both synovitis and PD signal was conducted. Construct and discriminant validity of a simplified PDUS assessment was investigated. RESULTS: A PDUS simplified assessment including 24 synovial sites from 12 joints detected 100% of patients with synovitis and 91% of patients with PD signal. There was a highly significant correlation between the 44-joint count and index for synovitis and PD signal and the 12-joint count and index for synovitis and PD signal at baseline and 6 months (r = 0.84-0.90, P < 0.0005). The smallest detectable difference was lower than the mean change in simplified PDUS variables. CONCLUSION: A 12-joint PDUS assessment of RA joint inflammation may be a valid, feasible method for multicenter monitoring of therapeutic response to biologic agents.