Impact of Glucocorticoid Dose on Complete Response, Serious Infections, and Mortality During the Initial Therapy of Lupus Nephritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Control Arms of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the effect of glucocorticoid regimens on renal response, infections, and mortality among patients with lupus nephritis (LN). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the control arms of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We included RCTs of biopsy-proven LN that used a protocolized regimen of glucocorticoids in combination with mycophenolic acid analogs or cyclophosphamide and reported the outcomes of complete response (CR), serious infections, and death. The starting dosage of glucocorticoids, tapering method, and administration of glucocorticoid pulses were abstracted. Meta-analysis of proportions, meta-regression, and subgroup meta-analysis were performed at 6 and 12 months for all outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty RCT arms (3,231 patients with LN) were included. The predicted rates of CR, serious infections, and death when starting on oral prednisone at 25 mg/day without pulses were 19.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3-31.5), 3.2% (95% CI 2.4-4.0), and 0.2% (95% CI 0.0-0.4), respectively. Starting on prednisone at 60 mg/day (without pulses) increased the rates to 34.6% (95% CI 16.9-52.3), 12.1% (95% CI 9.3-14.9), and 2.7% (95% CI 0.0-5.3), respectively. Adding glucocorticoid pulses increased the rates of CR and death but not serious infections. We observed a dose-response gradient between the initial glucocorticoid dosage and all the outcomes at six months after accounting for the administration of glucocorticoid pulses, underlying immunosuppressant, and baseline proteinuria. CONCLUSION: A higher exposure to glucocorticoids during the initial therapy of LN was associated with better renal outcomes at the cost of increased infections and death.

Clinicopathologic Associations in a Large International Cohort of Patients With Giant Cell Arteritis.

OBJECTIVE: In addition to aiding in diagnosis, histopathologic findings from temporal artery biopsy (TAB) specimens in giant cell arteritis (GCA) may be valuable for their associations with clinical features of the disease. This study was undertaken to compare histopathologic findings on TAB with biopsy interpretation and demographic, clinical, and imaging features at time of diagnosis. METHODS: Patients with a clinical diagnosis of GCA who had a TAB were selected from an international, multicenter observational cohort of vasculitis. Associations between demographic, clinical, radiographic, and histopathologic features were identified using bivariate testing and multivariate regression modeling. RESULTS: Of 705 patients with GCA who underwent TAB, 69% had histopathologic evidence of definite vasculitis. Specific histopathologic findings included the presence of giant cells (51%), fragmentation of the internal elastic lamina (41%), intimal thickening (33%), and predominantly mononuclear leukocyte infiltration (32%). Histopathologic interpretation of definite vasculitis was independently associated with giant cells (odds ratio [OR] 151.8 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 60.2-551.6]), predominantly mononuclear leukocyte infiltration (OR 11.8 [95% CI 5.9-24.9]), and fragmentation of the internal elastic lamina (OR 3.7 [95% CI 1.9-7.4]). A halo sign on temporal artery ultrasound and luminal damage of large arteries on angiography were significantly associated with presence of giant cells (OR 2.6 [95% CI 1.1-6.5] and OR 2.4 [95% CI 1.1-5.2], respectively). Specific histopathologic findings were associated with older age, but no associations were identified with vision loss or other clinical features. CONCLUSION: Histopathologic findings in GCA are strongly associated with the clinical diagnosis of GCA but have a limited role in identifying patterns of disease.

Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica might be at a high risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes due to the treatments used, the potential organ damage cause by primary systemic vasculitis, and the demographic factors associated with these conditions. We therefore aimed to investigate factors associated with COVID-19 outcomes in patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and April 12, 2021, who had a history of primary systemic vasculitis (antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody [ANCA]-associated vasculitis, giant cell arteritis, Behçet's syndrome, or other vasculitis) or polymyalgia rheumatica, and were reported to the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry were included. To assess COVID-19 outcomes in patients, we used an ordinal COVID-19 severity scale, defined as: (1) no hospitalisation; (2) hospitalisation without supplemental oxygen; (3) hospitalisation with any supplemental oxygen or ventilation; or (4) death. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs), adjusting for age, sex, time period, number of comorbidities, smoking status, obesity, glucocorticoid use, disease activity, region, and medication category. Analyses were also stratified by type of rheumatic disease. FINDINGS: Of 1202 eligible patients identified in the registry, 733 (61·0%) were women and 469 (39·0%) were men, and their mean age was 63·8 years (SD 17·1). A total of 374 (31·1%) patients had polymyalgia rheumatica, 353 (29·4%) had ANCA-associated vasculitis, 183 (15·2%) had giant cell arteritis, 112 (9·3%) had Behçet's syndrome, and 180 (15·0%) had other vasculitis. Of 1020 (84·9%) patients with outcome data, 512 (50·2%) were not hospitalised, 114 (11·2%) were hospitalised and did not receive supplemental oxygen, 239 (23·4%) were hospitalised and received ventilation or supplemental oxygen, and 155 (15·2%) died. A higher odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes were observed in patients who were older (per each additional decade of life OR 1·44 [95% CI 1·31-1·57]), were male compared with female (1·38 [1·05-1·80]), had more comorbidities (per each additional comorbidity 1·39 [1·23-1·58]), were taking 10 mg/day or more of prednisolone compared with none (2·14 [1·50-3·04]), or had moderate, or high or severe disease activity compared with those who had disease remission or low disease activity (2·12 [1·49-3·02]). Risk factors varied among different disease subtypes. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with primary systemic vasculitis and polymyalgia rheumatica, severe COVID-19 outcomes were associated with variable and largely unmodifiable risk factors, such as age, sex, and number of comorbidities, as well as treatments, including high-dose glucocorticoids. Our results could be used to inform mitigation strategies for patients with these diseases. FUNDING: American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The protective effect of rheumatic disease agents in COVID-19.

Several immunosuppressive therapies have been investigated as potential treatments for patients with severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Notable examples include corticosteroids, interleukin 6 (IL-6), interleukin 1 (IL-1), Janus kinase (JAK), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to analyze the mechanistic rationale and available evidence for these selected anti-rheumatic drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Currently, only corticosteroids have consistently proven to be effective in decreasing mortality and are recommended in clinical guidelines for the treatment of severe and critical COVID-19. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are ongoing to determine the role of other immunosuppressants.

US Physicians Overwhelmingly Endorse Hospice as the Better Option for Most Patients at the End of Life.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of hospice has increased significantly over the past 2 decades, but there has been no recent assessment of US physicians' opinions regarding and practices of referring patients to hospice. METHODS: We surveyed 2016 US physicians from various specialties. Respondents agreed or disagreed with 2 statements: "For most patients, hospice provides better care at the end of life than they would otherwise receive without hospice" and "Many patients who enter hospice end up missing out on medical interventions from which they would have benefited." Physicians were also asked, "In the past 12 months, approximately how many patients and/or their surrogates have you encouraged to consider entering hospice?" RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of physicians agreed that hospice provides better care at the end of life than the patient would receive without hospice. Only 11% of physicians agreed that patients who enter hospice miss out on medical interventions from which they would have benefitted. Ninety-two percent encouraged at least 1 patient to consider hospice in the previous 12 months. Oncologists were the most ambivalent about whether patients who enter hospice miss out on beneficial interventions, but they also referred more patients to hospice than physicians from other specialties. CONCLUSION: US physicians overwhelmingly believe hospice is the best form of care for most patients at the end of life. Compared to a study published in 1998, the median oncologist reports referring fewer patients to hospice, but the median general internist reports referring more.

Intentional sedation to unconsciousness at the end of life: findings from a national physician survey.

CONTEXT: The terms "palliative sedation" and "terminal sedation" have been used to refer to both proportionate palliative sedation, in which unconsciousness is a foreseen but unintended side effect, and palliative sedation to unconsciousness, in which physicians aim to make their patients unconscious until death. It has not been clear to what extent palliative sedation to unconsciousness is accepted and practiced by U.S. physicians. OBJECTIVES: To investigate U.S. physician acceptance and practice of palliative sedation to unconsciousness and to identify predictors of that practice. METHODS: In 2010, a survey was mailed to 2016 practicing U.S. physicians. Criterion measures included self-reported practice of palliative sedation to unconsciousness until death and physician endorsement of such sedation for a hypothetical patient with existential suffering at the end of life. RESULTS: Of the 1880 eligible physicians, 1156 responded to the survey (62%). One in ten (141/1156) physicians had sedated a patient in the previous 12 months with the specific intention of making the patient unconscious until death, and two of three physicians opposed sedation to unconsciousness for existential suffering, both in principle (68%, n = 773) and in the case of a hypothetical dying patient (72%, n = 831). Eighty-five percent (n = 973) of physicians agreed that unconsciousness is an acceptable side effect of palliative sedation but should not be directly intended. CONCLUSION: Although there is widespread support among U.S. physicians for proportionate palliative sedation, intentionally sedating dying patients to unconsciousness until death is neither the norm in clinical practice nor broadly supported for the treatment of primarily existential suffering.