Estimation of the burden of shielding among a cross-section of patients attending rheumatology clinics with SLE-data from the BSR audit of systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to estimate what proportion of people with SLE attending UK rheumatology clinics would be categorized as being at high risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and therefore asked to shield, and explore what implications this has for rheumatology clinical practice. METHODS: We used data from the British Society for Rheumatology multicentre audit of SLE, which included a large, representative cross-sectional sample of patients attending UK Rheumatology clinics with SLE. We calculated who would receive shielding advice using the British Society for Rheumatology's risk stratification guidance and accompanying scoring grid, and assessed whether ethnicity and history of nephritis were over-represented in the shielding group. RESULTS: The audit included 1003 patients from 51 centres across all 4 nations of the UK. Overall 344 (34.3%) patients had a shielding score ≥3 and would have been advised to shield. People with previous or current LN were 2.6 (1.9-3.4) times more likely to be in the shielding group than people with no previous LN (P < 0.001). Ethnicity was not evenly distributed between the groups (chi-squared P < 0.001). Compared with White people, people of Black ethnicity were 1.9 (1.3-2.8) and Asian 1.9 (1.3-2.7) times more likely to be in the shielding group. Increased risk persisted after controlling for LN. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the large number of people with SLE who are likely to be shielding. Implications for clinical practice include considering communication across language and cultural differences, and ways to conduct renal assessment including urinalysis, during telephone and video consultations for patients who are shielding.

BSR guideline on the management of adults with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) 2018: baseline multi-centre audit in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the baseline care provided to patients with SLE attending UK Rheumatology units, audited against standards derived from the recently published BSR guideline for the management of adults with SLE, the NICE technology appraisal for belimumab, and NHS England's clinical commissioning policy for rituximab. METHODS: SLE cases attending outpatient clinics during any 4-week period between February and June 2018 were retrospectively audited to assess care at the preceding visit. The effect of clinical environment (general vs dedicated CTD/vasculitis clinic and specialized vs non-specialized centre) were tested. Bonferroni's correction was applied to the significance level. RESULTS: Fifty-one units participated. We audited 1021 episodes of care in 1003 patients (median age 48 years, 74% diagnosed >5 years ago). Despite this disease duration, 286 (28.5%) patients had active disease. Overall in 497 (49%) clinic visits, it was recorded that the patient was receiving prednisolone, including in 28.5% of visits where disease was assessed as inactive. Low documented compliance (<60% clinic visits) was identified for audit standards relating to formal disease-activity assessment, reduction of drug-related toxicity and protection against comorbidities and damage. Compared with general clinics, dedicated clinics had higher compliance with standards for appropriate urine protein quantification (85.1% vs 78.1%, P ≤ 0.001). Specialized centres had higher compliance with BILAG Biologics Register recruitment (89.4% vs 44.4%, P ≤ 0.001) and blood pressure recording (95.3% vs 84.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This audit highlights significant unmet need for better disease control and reduction in corticosteroid toxicity and is an opportunity to improve compliance with national guidelines. Higher performance with nephritis screening in dedicated clinics supports wider adoption of this service-delivery model.

Prevalence, risk factors and associations of primary Raynaud's phenomenon: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature with regard to the prevalence, incidence, risk factors and associations of primary Raynaud's phenomenon (PRP). METHOD: A systematic review of the literature of observational studies for PRP was undertaken using five electronic databases. Any studies reporting prevalence, incidence and risk factors of PRP were collected. Relative risk or OR and 95% CI were extracted or calculated to present the association between risk factors and PRP. Random effects model was used to pool the results. RESULTS: 33 articles assessing a total of 33,733 participants were included in this analysis (2 cohort, 17 cross-sectional and 14 case-control studies). The pooled prevalence of PRP was 4.85% (95% CI 2.08% to 8.71%) in the general population. The pooled annual incidence of PRP was 0.25% (95% CI 0.19% to 0.32%). Risk factors and associations for PRP included female gender (OR=1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.91), family history (OR=16.6, 95% CI 7.44 to 36.8), smoking (OR=1.27, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.53), manual occupation (OR=2.66 95% CI 1.73 to 4.08), migraine (OR=4.02, 95% CI 2.62 to 6.17), cardiovascular disease (OR=1.69, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.34) and marital status (married, OR=0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83). The definition of PRP varied considerably between studies. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review of the prevalence, incidence, risk factors and associations of PRP. Further study using uniform strict criteria for the condition is required to confirm these findings, particularly the possible association with cardiovascular disease.