Assessing the impact of long-term inhaled corticosteroid therapy on patients with COVID-19 and coexisting chronic lung disease: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Background: Patients with chronic lung disease (CLD), such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were expected to have an increased risk of clinical manifestations and severity of COVID-19. However, these comorbidities have been reported less frequently than expected. Chronic treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may impact the clinical course of COVID-19. The main objective of this study is to know the influence of chronic treatment with ICS on the prognosis of COVID-19 hospitalized patients with CLD. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was designed, including patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected at admission and at seven days, and clinical outcomes were collected. Patients with CLD with and without chronic treatment with ICS were compared. Results: Two thousand five hundred ninety-eight patients were included, of which 1,171 patients had a diagnosis of asthma and 1,427 of COPD (53.37% and 41.41% with ICS, respectively). No differences were found in mortality, transfer to ICU, or development of moderate-severe ARDS. Patients with chronic ICS had a longer hospital stay in both asthma and COPD patients (9 vs. 8 days, p = 0.031 in asthma patients), (11 vs. 9 days, p = 0.018 in COPD patients); although they also had more comorbidity burden. Conclusions: Patients with chronic inhaled corticosteroids had longer hospital stays and more chronic comorbidities, measured by the Charlson comorbidity index, but they did not have more severe disease at admission, evaluated with qSOFA and PSI scores. Chronic treatment with inhaled corticosteroids had no influence on the prognosis of patients with chronic lung disease and COVID-19.

Target trial emulation with multi-state model analysis to assess treatment effectiveness using clinical COVID-19 data.

BACKGROUND: Real-world observational data are an important source of evidence on the treatment effectiveness for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness based on longitudinal data are often prone to methodological biases such as immortal time bias, confounding bias, and competing risks. METHODS: For exemplary target trial emulation, we used a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 501) in a single centre. We described the methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of a single-dose treatment, emulated a trial using real-world data, and drafted a hypothetical study protocol describing the main components. To avoid immortal time and time-fixed confounding biases, we applied the clone-censor-weight technique. We set a 5-day grace period as a period of time when treatment could be initiated. We used the inverse probability of censoring weights to account for the selection bias introduced by artificial censoring. To estimate the treatment effects, we took the multi-state model approach. We considered a multi-state model with five states. The primary endpoint was defined as clinical severity status, assessed by a 5-point ordinal scale on day 30. Differences between the treatment group and standard of care treatment group were calculated using a proportional odds model and shown as odds ratios. Additionally, the weighted cause-specific hazards and transition probabilities for each treatment arm were presented. RESULTS: Our study demonstrates that trial emulation with a multi-state model analysis is a suitable approach to address observational data limitations, evaluate treatment effects on clinically heterogeneous in-hospital death and discharge alive endpoints, and consider the intermediate state of admission to ICU. The multi-state model analysis allows us to summarize results using stacked probability plots that make it easier to interpret results. CONCLUSIONS: Extending the emulated target trial approach to multi-state model analysis complements treatment effectiveness analysis by gaining information on competing events. Combining two methodologies offers an option to address immortal time bias, confounding bias, and competing risk events. This methodological approach can provide additional insight for decision-making, particularly when data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are unavailable.

Nailfold videocapillaroscopy patterns in systemic sclerosis: implications for cutaneous subsets, disease features and prognostic value for survival.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the associations and prognostic value of scleroderma patterns by nailfold videocapillaroscopy (NVC) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and cutaneous subsets. METHODS: At baseline, 1356 SSc patients from the RESCLE registry were compared according to the scleroderma pattern as Late pattern and non-Late pattern, which included Early and Active patterns. Patient characteristics, disease features, survival time and causes of death were analysed. RESULTS: Late pattern was identified in 540 (39.8%), and non-Late pattern in 816 (60.2%) patients (88% women; 987 lcSSc/251 dcSSc). Late pattern was associated to dcSSc (OR=1.96; p<0.001), interstitial lung disease (ILD) (OR=1.29; p=0.031), and scleroderma renal crisis (OR=3.46; p<0.001). Once the cutaneous subset was disregarded in an alternative analysis, both digital ulcers (DU) (OR=1.29; p<0.037) and anti-topoisomerase I antibodies (OR=1.39; p< 0.036) emerged associated with the Late pattern. By cutaneous subsets, associations with Late pattern were: (1) in dcSSc, acro-osteolysis (OR=2.13; p=0.022), and systolic pulmonary artery pressure >40 mmHg by Doppler echocardiogram (OR=2.24; p<0.001); and (2) in lcSSc, ILD (OR=1.38; p=0.028). Survival was reduced in dcSSc with Late pattern compared to non-Late pattern (p=0.049). Risk factors for SSc mortality in multivariate regression Cox analysis were age at diagnosis (HR=1.03; p<0.001), dcSSc (HR=2.48; p<0.001), DU (HR=1.38; p=0.046), ILD (HR=2.81; p<0.001), and pulmonary arterial hypertension (HR=1.99; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SSc patients with Late pattern more frequently present dcSSc and develop more fibrotic and vascular manifestations. Advanced microangiopathy by NVC identifies dcSSc patients at risk of reduced survival due to SSc-related causes.

Key Genes of the Immune System and Predisposition to Acquired Hemophilia A: Evidence from a Spanish Cohort of 49 Patients Using Next-Generation Sequencing.

Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is a rare bleeding disorder caused by the presence of autoantibodies against factor VIII (FVIII). As with other autoimmune diseases, its etiology is complex and its genetic basis is unknown. The aim of this study was to identify the immunogenetic background that predisposes individuals to AHA. HLA and KIR gene clusters, as well as KLRK1, were sequenced using next-generation sequencing in 49 AHA patients. Associations between candidate genes involved in innate and adaptive immune responses and AHA were addressed by comparing the alleles, genotypes, haplotypes, and gene frequencies in the AHA cohort with those in the donors' samples or Spanish population cohort. Two genes of the HLA cluster, as well as rs1049174 in KLRK1, which tags the natural killer (NK) cytotoxic activity haplotype, were found to be linked to AHA. Specifically, A*03:01 (p = 0.024; odds ratio (OR) = 0.26[0.06-0.85]) and DRB1*13:03 (p = 6.8 × 103, OR = 7.56[1.64-51.40]), as well as rs1049174 (p = 0.012), were significantly associated with AHA. In addition, two AHA patients were found to carry one copy each of the low-frequency allele DQB1*03:09 (nallele = 2, 2.04%), which was completely absent in the donors. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that the involvement of these specific alleles in the predisposition to AHA has been proposed. Further molecular and functional studies will be needed to unravel their specific contributions. We believe our findings expand the current knowledge on the genetic factors involved in susceptibility to AHA, which will contribute to improving the diagnosis and prognosis of AHA patients.

WHO Ordinal Scale and Inflammation Risk Categories in COVID-19. Comparative Study of the Severity Scales.

BACKGROUND: The WHO ordinal severity scale has been used to predict mortality and guide trials in COVID-19. However, it has its limitations. OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to compare three classificatory and predictive models: the WHO ordinal severity scale, the model based on inflammation grades, and the hybrid model. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with patient data collected and followed up from March 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021, from the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. As this was a hospital-based study, the patients included corresponded to categories 3 to 7 of the WHO ordinal scale. Categories 6 and 7 were grouped in the same category. KEY RESULTS: A total of 17,225 patients were included in the study. Patients classified as high risk in each of the WHO categories according to the degree of inflammation were as follows: 63.8% vs. 79.9% vs. 90.2% vs. 95.1% (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for WHO ordinal scale categories 3 to 6/7 was as follows: 0.8% vs. 24.3% vs. 45.3% vs. 34% (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for the combined categories of ordinal scale 3a to 5b was as follows: 0.4% vs. 1.1% vs. 11.2% vs. 27.5% vs. 35.5% vs. 41.1% (p<0.001). The predictive regression model for in-hospital mortality with our proposed combined ordinal scale reached an AUC=0.871, superior to the two models separately. CONCLUSIONS: The present study proposes a new severity grading scale for COVID-19 hospitalized patients. In our opinion, it is the most informative, representative, and predictive scale in COVID-19 patients to date.

The Use of Corticosteroids or Tocilizumab in COVID-19 Based on Inflammatory Markers.

BACKGROUND: The inflammatory cascade is the main cause of death in COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids (CS) and tocilizumab (TCZ) are available to treat this escalation but which patients to administer it remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunosuppressive/anti-inflammatory therapy in COVID-19, based on the degree of inflammation. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with data on patients collected and followed up from March 1st, 2020, to May 1st, 2021, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Patients under treatment with CS vs. those under CS plus TCZ were compared. Effectiveness was explored in 3 risk categories (low, intermediate, high) based on lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ferritin, and D-dimer values. PATIENTS: A total of 21,962 patients were included in the Registry by May 2021. Of these, 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the composite variable of in-hospital mortality, requirement for high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. KEY RESULTS: A total of 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ). No significant differences were observed in either the low/intermediate-risk category (1.5% vs. 7.4%, p=0.175) or the high-risk category (23.1% vs. 20%, p=0.223) after propensity score matching. A statistically significant lower mortality was observed in the very high-risk category (31.9% vs. 23.9%, p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: The prescription of CS alone or in combination with TCZ should be based on the degrees of inflammation and reserve the CS plus TCZ combination for patients at high and especially very high risk.

Anti-Polymyositis/Scl Antibodies in Systemic Sclerosis: Clinical Associations in a Multicentric Spanish Cohort and Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical profile of patients with anti-polymyositis/Scl (PM/Scl) antibodies in a cohort of Spanish patients with systemic sclerosis. METHODS: From the Spanish Scleroderma Study Group database, we selected patients in whom PM/Scl antibodies had been tested. We compared demographic, clinical, laboratory, and survival data between patients with and without PM/Scl antibodies. RESULTS: Seventy-two of 947 patients (7.6%) tested positive for PM/Scl antibodies. Patients with PM/Scl antibodies presented initially with more puffy fingers and arthralgias but less Raynaud phenomenon. Regarding cumulative manifestations, myositis and arthritis were more prevalent in patients with PM/Scl antibodies, as well as pulmonary fibrosis. On the contrary, patients with PM/Scl antibodies had less pulmonary hypertension. No difference in terms of survival at 5 and 10 years was noticed between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In systemic sclerosis patients from Spain, PM/Scl antibodies are associated with a distinct clinical profile. However, PM/Scl antibodies did not influence survival.

The incidence rate of pulmonary arterial hypertension and scleroderma renal crisis in systemic sclerosis patients with digital ulcers on endothelin antagonist receptors (ERAs) and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i).

INTRODUCTION: Endothelin antagonist receptors (ERAs) and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i) are beneficial in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and digital ulcers (DU) and prevent from DU recurrences. Our study aimed to determine the difference in the incidence rate of PAH and scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) in patients with SSc and DU (SSc-DU) under ERAs/PDE5i or without treatment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including SSc-DU patients from the Spanish Scleroderma Registry (RESCLE). The primary outcome was the incidence rate of PAH and SRC in patients under ERAs/PDE5i or not. RESULTS: Some 544 patients out of 1817 (29.9%) in the RESCLE database had DU, 221 (40.6%) under ERAs/PDE5i and 323 (59.4%) not. The incidence rate (95% CI) difference between patients under treatment or not under did not reach statistical significance in PAH [-0.1 (-4.8, 4.69), P = 0.988] or in SRC [0.7 (-2.2, 3.7), P = 0.620]. However, the time from the first DU to the diagnosis of SRC was delayed in treated patients [mean (s.d.) 7.6 (5.8) years vs 2.9 (5.3); P = 0.021]. The dcSSc subset was more prevalent in the treatment group (36 vs 26%; P = 0.018), along with anti-topoisomerase I antibodies (34 vs 18%; P < 0.001) and tendon friction rubs (12 vs 6%; P = 0.038), whereas the lcSSc subset was more prevalent in the no-treatment group (57 vs 66%; P = 0.031) along with ACA (37 vs 46%; P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the incidence rate of PAH and SRC between groups. However, treatment with ERAs and/or PDE5i appeared to delay the occurrence of SRC.

Estimation of Admission D-dimer Cut-off Value to Predict Venous Thrombotic Events in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Analysis of the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

BACKGROUND: Venous thrombotic events (VTE) are frequent in COVID-19, and elevated plasma D-dimer (pDd) and dyspnea are common in both entities. OBJECTIVE: To determine the admission pDd cut-off value associated with in-hospital VTE in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective study analyzing the at-admission pDd cut-off value to predict VTE and anticoagulation intensity along hospitalization due to COVID-19. RESULTS: Among 9386 patients, 2.2% had VTE: 1.6% pulmonary embolism (PE), 0.4% deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and 0.2% both. Those with VTE had a higher prevalence of tachypnea (42.9% vs. 31.1%; p = 0.0005), basal O2 saturation <93% (45.4% vs. 33.1%; p = 0.0003), higher at admission pDd (median [IQR]: 1.4 [0.6-5.5] vs. 0.6 [0.4-1.2] µg/ml; p < 0.0001) and platelet count (median [IQR]: 208 [158-289] vs. 189 [148-245] platelets × 109/L; p = 0.0013). A pDd cut-off of 1.1 µg/ml showed specificity 72%, sensitivity 49%, positive predictive value (PPV) 4%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 99% for in-hospital VTE. A cut-off value of 4.7 µg/ml showed specificity of 95%, sensitivity of 27%, PPV of 9%, and NPV of 98%. Overall mortality was proportional to pDd value, with the lowest incidence for each pDd category depending on anticoagulation intensity: 26.3% for those with pDd >1.0 µg/ml treated with prophylactic dose (p < 0.0001), 28.8% for pDd for patients with pDd >2.0 µg/ml treated with intermediate dose (p = 0.0001), and 31.3% for those with pDd >3.0 µg/ml and full anticoagulation (p = 0.0183). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a pDd value greater than 3.0 µg/ml can be considered to screen VTE and to consider full-dose anticoagulation.

Clinical Characteristics and Risk Factors of Respiratory Failure in a Cohort of Young Patients Requiring Hospital Admission with SARS-CoV2 Infection in Spain: Results of the Multicenter SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

BACKGROUND: Age is a risk factor for COVID severity. Most studies performed in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 infection have shown an over-representation of older patients and consequently few have properly defined COVID-19 in younger patients who require hospital admission. The aim of the present study was to analyze the clinical characteristics and risk factors for the development of respiratory failure among young (18 to 50 years) hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective nationwide cohort study included hospitalized patients from 18 to 50 years old with confirmed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and July 2, 2020. All patient data were obtained from the SEMI-COVID Registry. Respiratory failure was defined as the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2 ratio) ≤200 mmHg or the need for mechanical ventilation and/or high-flow nasal cannula or the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: During the recruitment period, 15,034 patients were included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, of whom 2327 (15.4%) were younger than 50 years. Respiratory failure developed in 343 (14.7%), while mortality occurred in 2.3%. Patients with respiratory failure showed a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events (44 (13%) vs 14 (0.8%), p<0.001), venous thrombosis (23 (6.7%) vs 14 (0.8%), p<0.001), mortality (43 (12.5%) vs 7 (0.4%), p<0.001), and longer hospital stay (15 (9-24) vs 6 (4-9), p<0.001), than the remaining patients. In multivariate analysis, variables associated with the development of respiratory failure were obesity (odds ratio (OR), 2.42; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.71 to 3.43; p<0.0001), alcohol abuse (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.26 to 4.58; p=0.0076), sleep apnea syndrome (SAHS) (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.07 to 3.43; p=0.032), Charlson index ≥1 (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.25 to 2.52; p=0.0013), fever (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.22; p=0.0075), lymphocytes ≤1100 cells/µL (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.37; p=0.0033), LDH >320 U/I (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.42; p=0.0039), AST >35 mg/dL (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.52; p=0.003), sodium <135 mmol/L (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.33; p=0.0079), and C-reactive protein >8 mg/dL (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.72 to 3.41; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Young patients with COVID-19 requiring hospital admission showed a notable incidence of respiratory failure. Obesity, SAHS, alcohol abuse, and certain laboratory parameters were independently associated with the development of this complication. Patients who suffered respiratory failure had a higher mortality and a higher incidence of major cardiac events, venous thrombosis, and hospital stay.

Inadequate use of antibiotics in the covid-19 era: effectiveness of antibiotic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the concept of medicine. This work aims to analyze the use of antibiotics in patients admitted to the hospital due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This work analyzes the use and effectiveness of antibiotics in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on data from the SEMI-COVID-19 registry, an initiative to generate knowledge about this disease using data from electronic medical records. Our primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality according to antibiotic use. The secondary endpoint was the effect of macrolides on mortality. RESULTS: Of 13,932 patients, antibiotics were used in 12,238. The overall death rate was 20.7% and higher among those taking antibiotics (87.8%). Higher mortality was observed with use of all antibiotics (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.21-1.62; p < .001) except macrolides, which had a higher survival rate (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64-0.76; p < .001). The decision to start antibiotics was influenced by presence of increased inflammatory markers and any kind of infiltrate on an x-ray. Patients receiving antibiotics required respiratory support and were transferred to intensive care units more often. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial co-infection was uncommon among COVID-19 patients, yet use of antibiotics was high. There is insufficient evidence to support widespread use of empiric antibiotics in these patients. Most may not require empiric treatment and if they do, there is promising evidence regarding azithromycin as a potential COVID-19 treatment.

Mortality and other adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19 in association with glucose-lowering drugs: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists on the role of glucose-lowering drugs in patients with COVID-19. Our main objective was to examine the association between in-hospital death and each routine at-home glucose-lowering drug both individually and in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19. We also evaluated their association with the composite outcome of the need for ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death as well as on the development of in-hospital complications and a long-time hospital stay. METHODS: We selected all patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine's registry of COVID-19 patients (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). It is an ongoing, observational, multicenter, nationwide cohort of patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spain from March 1, 2020. Each glucose-lowering drug user was matched with a user of other glucose-lowering drugs in a 1:1 manner by propensity scores. In order to assess the adequacy of propensity score matching, we used the standardized mean difference found in patient characteristics after matching. There was considered to be a significant imbalance in the group if a standardized mean difference > 10% was found. To evaluate the association between treatment and study outcomes, both conditional logit and mixed effect logistic regressions were used when the sample size was ≥ 100. RESULTS: A total of 2666 patients were found in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, 1297 on glucose-lowering drugs in monotherapy and 465 in combination with metformin. After propensity matching, 249 patients on metformin, 105 on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 129 on insulin, 127 on metformin/dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 34 on metformin/sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and 67 on metformin/insulin were selected. No at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed a significant association with in-hospital death; the composite outcome of the need of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death; in-hospital complications; or long-time hospital stays. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19, at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed no significant association with mortality and adverse outcomes. Given the close relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 and the limited evidence on the role of glucose-lowering drugs, prospective studies are needed.

Serodiscordant patients with systemic sclerosis: when antibody does not correspond to skin involvement.

OBJECTIVES: Diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) is associated with anti-topoisomerase (ATA) whereas limited cutaneous (lcSSc) and sine scleroderma (ssSSc) are mainly associated with anti-centromere antibody (ACA). Serodiscordant patients were defined as lcSSc subjects with ATA, dcSSc with ACA, and ssSSc with ATA. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical manifestations and prognosis between serodiscordant patients and their counterparts (those with lcSSc with ACA, dcSSc with ATA and ssSSc with ACA, respectively). METHODS: From the Spanish Scleroderma Registry we selected those patients for whom skin involvement (dcSSc, lcSSc or ssSSc) was detailed at baseline and last visit and ACA and ATA had been determined. Demographic, clinical characteristics, and survival data were compared according to the antibody status. RESULTS: The whole cohort comprised 901 patients and six mutually exclusive groups were defined: lcSScACA in 511 (57%) patients, lcSScATA group in 87 (10%), dcSScATA group in 172 (19%), dcSScACA group in 21 (2%), ssSScACA group in 92 (10%), and ssSScATA group in 18 (2%) patients, respectively. Interstitial lung disease (ILD) and severe ILD were more frequent in patients with dcSScATA than in those with dcSScACA. Conversely, the prevalence of isolated pulmonary hypertension (without ILD) was higher in those with dcSScACA (15% vs. 2%; p=0.018). No differences were found regarding survival when comparing serodiscordant patients with the seroconcordants patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, the prevalence of serodiscordant SSc patients was low. They differed from their counterparts in some clinical manifestations. The management of patients with SSc should be guided by both serology and cutaneous subtype.

LAUDES Study: impact of digital ulcers on hand functional limitation, work productivity and daily activities, in systemic sclerosis patients.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of digital ulcers (DUs) in daily life of systemic sclerosis (SSc) Spanish patients. We developed a multicenter observational study to compare functional disability in SSc patients with active DUs vs. those without DUs. An additional correlation between perception of patients and physicians on disability due to DUs was performed. A total of 199 patients were enrolled, 70 (35%) with DUs. Patients with DUs were younger (48 vs. 58 years; p < 0.001) and had more frequently the diffuse subtype of SSc (45 vs. 24%; p = 0.004) than patients without DUs. Patients with DUs showed significantly higher scores in the Cochin Hand Function Scale overall (p < 0.002) and for each of its five dimensions. They also showed higher scores in the Systemic Sclerosis Health Assessment Questionnaire items related to hand function such as, dress and self-care (p < 0.013), eat (p < 0.013) and grip (p < 0.03), and higher Visual Analogic Scale scores for pain (p < 0.013), trouble related with Raynaud's Phenomenon (p < 0.001) and sense of severity (p < 0.004). Impact on daily activities was significantly higher in patients with DUs (p = 0.002), with a non-significant trend to experience higher impact on work productivity (p = 0.07). A high correlation was found between DUs patients and physicians opinion on the impact of DUs (daily life: Pearson R = 0.86; work productivity: Pearson R = 0.87). Study findings show an impaired hand function and increased disability for daily life activities and work productivity in SSc patients with DUs compared with patients without DUs in Spanish population.

Changes in the pattern of death of 987 patients with systemic sclerosis from 1990 to 2009 from the nationwide Spanish Scleroderma Registry (RESCLE).

OBJECTIVES: To determine the changes in the pattern of death of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) throughout 20 years. METHODS: Data were collected from the Spanish Scleroderma Registry (RESCLE), retrospective multicentre database from 1990 to 2009. SSc-related and SSc-non related causes of death were assessed. RESULTS: 987 patients were recruited. Overall standardised mortality ratio (SMR) was 2.34 (2.24-2.44). SSc-related causes of death were responsible of 72% of all deaths of those patients diagnosed within 1990-99 vs. 48% within 2000-09 (p=0.006). Relative pulmonary death rate was stable over time (68.1% within 1990-99 vs. 63.9% within 2000-09, p=0.815). Relative renal death rate was decreasing over time (17% within 1990-99 vs. 5.5% within 2000-09, p=0.175). Heart distribution tripled its ratio (12.8% within 1990-99 vs. 30.6% within 2000-09, p=0.058). CONCLUSIONS: SSc-related causes of death were decreasing over time and, among them, pulmonary involvement was the leading cause of death in both decades. The ratio of renal causes decreased since 1990 at the time that the ratio of cardiac causes increased.

Influence of antibody profile in clinical features and prognosis in a cohort of Spanish patients with systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical manifestations and prognosis of Spanish patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) according to their immunological profile. METHODS: From the Spanish Scleroderma Study Group or RESCLE (Registro de ESCLErodermia as Spanish nomenclature) Registry we selected those patients in which anti-centromere (ACA), anti-topoisomerase I (ATA), and anti-RNA polymerase III (ARA) antibodies had been determined, and a single positivity for each SSc specific antibody was detected. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and survival data were compared according to the serologic status of these antibodies. RESULTS: Overall, 209 SSc patients were included. In 128 (61%) patients ACA was the only positive antibody, 46 (22%) were only positive for ATA, and 35 (17%) for ARA. Of note, the three groups were mutually exclusive. In univariate analysis, patients with ACA presented more frequently limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc) (p<0.001), whereas diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) was the most frequent subtype in patients with ATA (54%) and ARA (62%) (both p<0.001). Positive patients for ARA showed the highest prevalence of joint involvement (p<0.001) and those from ATA group had a higher prevalence of interstitial lung disease (ILD) (p<0.001). Scleroderma renal crisis was more frequent in the ARA group (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, ACA were associated with female gender and were protective for dcSSc and ILD. ATA were found to be protective for lcSSc and they were independently associated with interstitial reticular pattern. ARA positivity was independently associated with dcSSc. We did not find differences in mortality between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: In Spanish SSc patients, the presence of SSc specific antibodies conferred a distinctive clinical profile.

Clinical and epidemiological differences between men and women with systemic sclerosis: a study in a Spanish systemic sclerosis cohort and literature review.

OBJECTIVES: The low overall prevalence of systemic sclerosis (SSc) and the low proportion of male patients have resulted in a scarcity of studies assessing sex differences in Ssc patients, and contradictory results have often been show among those studies that have been performed. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted with the Spanish RESCLE register to analyse the influence of gender on survival of SSc patients. RESULTS: In total, 1506 SSc patients (1341 women, 165 men) were recruited from 21 centres. Older age at onset (OR 1.02), shorter time from onset to diagnosis (OR 0.96), smoking (OR 2.57), interstitial lung disease (ILD) (OR 1.58), less predisposition to sicca syndrome and to antinuclear antibody positivity (OR 0.29 and 0.43, respectively), and higher compliance with the ACR 1980 criteria (OR 1.79) were independently associated with the male sex. During follow-up, 30.4% of men versus 14.6% of women died (p<0.001). Survival at 10 years from the onset of symptoms was 75.3% for men and 92.9% for women (p<0.001), and the difference remained after selecting only SSc-related deaths (85.6% vs. 96.1%, p<0.001). The mortality predictive factors were diffuse SSc (OR 2.26), ILD (OR 1.82), digital ulcers (OR 1.38), tendon friction rubs (OR 1.74), male sex (OR 1.53), increased age at onset (OR 1.13) and isolated PH (considering only deaths from diagnosis), both in the overall (OR 3.63) and female cohorts (OR 3.97). The same risk factors were observed in the male cohort, except for isolated PH and ILD. CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirms the existence of epidemiological, clinical, laboratory and prognostic gender differences in systemic sclerosis patients.

Lymphopenia as prognostic factor for mortality and hospital length of stay for elderly hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Lymphopenia is a common finding in elderly patients and its relevance is unknown. AIMS: To evaluate the clinical prognostic value of lymphopenia on the admission of elderly hospitalized patients. METHODS: From 2012 to 2013, all consecutive patients >75 hospitalized because of medical conditions were prospectively included in the study. Sociodemographic, clinical and laboratory data were collected. Lymphopenia was considered by a plasmatic lymphocyte count of <1100 × 10(9)/l. Hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality and mortality after a 1-year follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: The total sample consisted of 180 patients, 90 of whom were females (50 %). Mean age was 83.8 years (SD 5.4). Lymphopenia was present in 45 patients (25 %) upon admission. When compared, those patients with lymphopenia showed a longer hospital stay (19.9 vs. 15.7 days; p 0.002) and higher in-hospital mortality (26.7 vs 7.7 %; p 0.001). The odds ratio for in-hospital mortality in patients with lymphopenia was 3.9 (p 0.03) and the hazard ratio for 1-year mortality 1.9 (p 0.038). Both groups of elderly patients, with and without lymphopenia on admission, showed no differences related to sociodemographic, clinical, or other laboratory data. The study showed no difference in rate of infections between the groups. CONCLUSION: A quarter of our elderly hospitalized patients had lymphopenia on admission. Furthermore, lymphopenia seemed to constitute as a predictor for bad outcome in terms of a longer hospital stay, in-hospital mortality and 1-year mortality after discharge.

Prevalence of the limited vs. extensive scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease at the time of diagnosis of SSc-ILD based on Goh et al. criteria. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Goh et al. proposed in 2008 a classificatory algorithm of limited or extensive SSc-ILD. The prevalence of both at the time of diagnosis of SSc-ILD is not known with exactitude. METHODS: The review was undertaken by means of MEDLINE and SCOPUS from 2008 to 2023 and using the terms: "systemic", "scleroderma" or "interstitial lung disease" [MesH]. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for the qualifying assessment for observational studies and the Jadad scale for clinical trials. The inverse variance-weighted method was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were initially included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA). Of these, 17 studies had no overlapping data. They reported data from 2,149 patients, 1,369 (81.2%) were female. The mean age was 52.4 (SD 6.6) years. 45.2% of the patients had the diffuse subtype and 54.8% had the limited or sine scleroderma subtype. A total of 38.7% of the patients showed positive antitopoisomerase antibodies (ATA) and 14.2% positive anticentromere antibodies (ACA). The mean percentage of forced vital capacity (FVC) at baseline was 80.5% (SD 6.9) and of diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLco) was 59.1% (SD 9.6). Twelve studies presented SSc-ILD extension data adjusted for PFTs and were included in the meta-analysis. The 10 observational cohort studies were analyzed separately. The overall percentage of limited extension was estimated at 63.5% (95%CI 55.3-73; p < 0.001) using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies (I2) was 9.8% (95%CI 0-68.2%) with the random-effects model. Extensive pulmonary involvement was estimated at 34.3% (95%CI 26-45.4; p < 0.001). Heterogeneity between studies (I2) was 0% (95%CI 0-61.6%) with the random-effects model. CONCLUSION: The overall percentage of limited SSc-ILD at the time of diagnosis of SSc-ILD was estimated at 63.5% and extensive at 34.3%.

Methodological biases in observational hospital studies of COVID-19 treatment effectiveness: pitfalls and potential.

Introduction: This study aims to discuss and assess the impact of three prevalent methodological biases: competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias in real-world observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness. We use a demonstrative observational data example of COVID-19 patients to assess the impact of these biases and propose potential solutions. Methods: We describe competing risks, immortal-time bias, and time-fixed confounding bias by evaluating treatment effectiveness in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. For our demonstrative analysis, we use observational data from the registry of patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the Bellvitge University Hospital in Spain from March 2020 to February 2021 and met our predefined inclusion criteria. We compare estimates of a single-dose, time-dependent treatment with the standard of care. We analyze the treatment effectiveness using common statistical approaches, either by ignoring or only partially accounting for the methodological biases. To address these challenges, we emulate a target trial through the clone-censor-weight approach. Results: Overlooking competing risk bias and employing the naïve Kaplan-Meier estimator led to increased in-hospital death probabilities in patients with COVID-19. Specifically, in the treatment effectiveness analysis, the Kaplan-Meier estimator resulted in an in-hospital mortality of 45.6% for treated patients and 59.0% for untreated patients. In contrast, employing an emulated trial framework with the weighted Aalen-Johansen estimator, we observed that in-hospital death probabilities were reduced to 27.9% in the "X"-treated arm and 40.1% in the non-"X"-treated arm. Immortal-time bias led to an underestimated hazard ratio of treatment. Conclusion: Overlooking competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias leads to shifted estimates of treatment effects. Applying the naïve Kaplan-Meier method resulted in the most biased results and overestimated probabilities for the primary outcome in analyses of hospital data from COVID-19 patients. This overestimation could mislead clinical decision-making. Both immortal-time bias and confounding bias must be addressed in assessments of treatment effectiveness. The trial emulation framework offers a potential solution to address all three methodological biases.