Factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry.

OBJECTIVES: To determine factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases. METHODS: Physician-reported registry of adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19 (from 24 March to 1 July 2020). The primary outcome was COVID-19-related death. Age, sex, smoking status, comorbidities, rheumatic disease diagnosis, disease activity and medications were included as covariates in multivariable logistic regression models. Analyses were further stratified according to rheumatic disease category. RESULTS: Of 3729 patients (mean age 57 years, 68% female), 390 (10.5%) died. Independent factors associated with COVID-19-related death were age (66-75 years: OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.22; >75 years: 6.18, 4.47 to 8.53; both vs ≤65 years), male sex (1.46, 1.11 to 1.91), hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease (1.89, 1.31 to 2.73), chronic lung disease (1.68, 1.26 to 2.25) and prednisolone-equivalent dosage >10 mg/day (1.69, 1.18 to 2.41; vs no glucocorticoid intake). Moderate/high disease activity (vs remission/low disease activity) was associated with higher odds of death (1.87, 1.27 to 2.77). Rituximab (4.04, 2.32 to 7.03), sulfasalazine (3.60, 1.66 to 7.78), immunosuppressants (azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, ciclosporin, mycophenolate or tacrolimus: 2.22, 1.43 to 3.46) and not receiving any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) (2.11, 1.48 to 3.01) were associated with higher odds of death, compared with methotrexate monotherapy. Other synthetic/biological DMARDs were not associated with COVID-19-related death. CONCLUSION: Among people with rheumatic disease, COVID-19-related death was associated with known general factors (older age, male sex and specific comorbidities) and disease-specific factors (disease activity and specific medications). The association with moderate/high disease activity highlights the importance of adequate disease control with DMARDs, preferably without increasing glucocorticoid dosages. Caution may be required with rituximab, sulfasalazine and some immunosuppressants.

Impact of Adverse Events Associated With Medications in the Treatment and Prevention of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

PURPOSE: Treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over the last few decades have transformed the future outlook of the disease. Although patients with clinically apparent RA have a number of therapeutic options, all are associated with the risk of adverse events (AEs). Such therapeutics, facilitated by the identification of novel biomarkers and environmental and genetic factors to predict RA, may allow early detection, prompt treatment, and prevention before the future development of clinically apparent disease. Before choosing such treatments to make informed decisions in this context, however, accurate quantification of benefits and harms of such treatments is vital for participants without symptoms. This review summarizes the AEs reported in trials in preclinical or very early RA, the frequency and risk of primary AEs of concern associated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (conventional, biologic, and targeted), glucocorticoids, and analgesia in clinically apparent RA. Also summarized is the evidence to date to support the quantification of benefit and harms incorporating patient preferences. METHODS: This analysis is a narrative review in which individual searches were performed in PubMed and EMBASE for each drug and topic outlined in the review. FINDINGS: Current therapies in RA can result in a considerable burden of AEs (serious and nonserious) depending on the individual's baseline risk. The absolute risk of serious AEs to treatments reported in individuals at risk of RA, undifferentiated, or very early inflammatory arthritis trials was low; however, nonserious AEs were not consistently reported. If such therapies prove effective at preventing the onset of RA in high-risk patients, incorporating patient preferences as well as robust quantification of benefits and harms to inform decisions is imperative. Patients' perceptions about treatment in this context may be risk averse or benefit driven. The risk of AEs that may not reverse after drug cessation, such as serious infection and malignancy, seem to be important AEs in such decision-making. IMPLICATIONS: The impact of AEs in response to potentially preventative treatment is an important consideration for individuals at high risk of developing RA with minimal symptoms. Robust quantification of treatment effect given baseline risk versus the risks of developing all AEs (including those that may affect quality of life), while incorporating participants' views, will be necessary for future informed decision-making.

Opioid use, postoperative complications, and implant survival after unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: a population-based network study.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty around whether to use unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) or total knee replacement (TKR) for individuals with osteoarthritis confined to a single compartment of the knee. We aimed to emulate the design of the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) using routinely collected data to assess whether the efficacy results reported in the trial translate into effectiveness in routine practice, and to assess comparative safety. METHODS: We did a population-based network study using data from four US and one UK health-care database, part of the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network. The inclusion criteria were the same as those for TOPKAT; briefly, we identified patients aged at least 40 years with osteoarthritis who had undergone UKR or TKR and who had available data for at least one year prior to surgery. Patients were excluded if they had evidence of previous knee arthroplasty, knee fracture, knee surgery (except diagnostic), rheumatoid arthritis, infammatory arthropathies, or septic arthritis. Opioid use from 91-365 days after surgery, as a proxy for persistent pain, was assessed for all participants in all databases. Postoperative complications (ie, venous thromboembolism, infection, readmission, and mortality) were assessed over the 60 days after surgery and implant survival (as measured by revision procedures) was assessed over the 5 years after surgery. Outcomes were assessed in all databases, except for readmission, which was assessed in three of the databases, and mortality, which was assessed in two of the databases. Propensity score matched Cox proportional hazards models were fitted for each outcome. Calibrated hazard ratios (cHRs) were generated for each database to account for observed differences in control outcomes, and cHRs were then combined using meta-analysis. FINDINGS: 33 867 individuals who received UKR and 557 831 individuals who received TKR between Jan 1, 2005, and April 30, 2018, were eligible for matching. 32 379 with UKR and 250 377 with TKR were propensity score matched and informed the analyses. UKR was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative opioid use (cHR from meta-analysis 0·81, 95% CI 0·73-0·90) and a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism (0·62, 0·36-0·95), whereas no difference was seen for infection (0·85, 0·51-1·37) and readmission (0·79, 0·47-1·25). Evidence was insufficient to conclude whether there was a reduction in risk of mortality. UKR was also associated with an increased risk of revision (1·64, 1·40-1·94). INTERPRETATION: UKR was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative opioid use compared with TKR, which might indicate a reduced risk of persistent pain after surgery. UKR was associated with a lower risk of venous thromboembolism but an increased risk of revision compared with TKR. These findings can help to inform shared decision making for individuals eligible for knee replacement surgery. FUNDING: EU/European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations Innovative Medicines Initiative (2) Joint Undertaking (EHDEN).