To be or not to B27 positive: implications for the phenotypes of axial spondyloarthritis outcomes. Data from a large multiracial cohort from the Brazilian Registry of Spondyloarthritis.

BACKGROUND: There is a remarkable variability in the frequency of HLA-B27 positivity in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA), which may be associated with different clinical presentations worldwide. However, there is a lack of data considering ethnicity and sex on the evaluation of the main clinical and prognostic outcomes in mixed-race populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of HLA-B27 and its correlation with disease parameters in a large population of patients from the Brazilian Registry of Spondyloarthritis (RBE). METHODS: The RBE is a multicenter, observational, prospective cohort that enrolled patients with SpA from 46 centers representing all five geographic regions of Brazil. The inclusion criteria were as follow: (1) diagnosis of axSpA by an expert rheumatologist; (2) age ≥18 years; (3) classification according to ASAS axial. The following data were collected via a standardized protocol: demographic data, disease parameters and treatment historical. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were included, with 73.4% HLA-B27 positivity and a mean age of 44.4 (±13.2) years. Positive HLA-B27 was significantly associated with male sex, earlier age at disease onset and diagnosis, uveitis, and family history of SpA. Conversely, negative HLA-B27 was associated with psoriasis, higher peripheral involvement and disease activity, worse quality of life and mobility. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that HLA-B27 positivity was associated with a classic axSpA pattern quite similar to that of Caucasian axSpA patients around the world. Furthermore, its absence was associated with peripheral manifestations and worse outcomes, suggesting a relevant phenotypic difference in a highly miscegenated population.

Guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases: a Brazilian Society of Rheumatology task force.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) to rheumatologists considering specific scenarios of the daily practice based on the shared-making decision (SMD) process. METHODS: A task force was constituted by 24 rheumatologists (panel members), with clinical and research expertise in immunizations and infectious diseases in immunocompromised patients, endorsed by the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (BSR), to develop guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IMRD. A consensus was built through the Delphi method and involved four rounds of anonymous voting, where five options were used to determine the level of agreement (LOA), based on the Likert Scale: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree (neutral); (4) agree; and (5) strongly agree. Nineteen questions were addressed and discussed via teleconference to formulate the answers. In order to identify the relevant data on COVID-19 vaccines, a search with standardized descriptors and synonyms was performed on September 10th, 2021, of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and LILACS to identify studies of interest. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of nonrandomized studies. RESULTS: All the nineteen questions-answers (Q&A) were approved by the BSR Task Force with more than 80% of panelists voting options 4-agree-and 5-strongly agree-, and a consensus was reached. These Guidelines were focused in SMD on the most appropriate timing for IMRD patients to get vaccinated to reach the adequate covid-19 vaccination response. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed by a BSR Task Force with a high LOA among panelists, based on the literature review of published studies and expert opinion for COVID-19 vaccination in IMRD patients. Noteworthy, in the pandemic period, up to the time of the review and the consensus process for this document, high-quality evidence was scarce. Thus, it is not a substitute for clinical judgment.