Relevant domains and outcome measurement instruments in neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: Although neuropsychiatric involvement in SLE (NPSLE) is one of the most complex and troubling manifestations of the disease, validated outcome instruments to be used as sensitive endpoints in controlled clinical trials are lacking. We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify outcome measurement instruments and domains used to assess NPSLE. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were used. Articles available in English (1967-2020), listed in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and the EULAR outcome measures library were screened. All domains and outcome measurement instruments were characterized according to the OMERACT Filter 2.1, considering core areas (manifestations/abnormalities, life impact, death/lifespan, societal/resource use) and contextual factors. RESULTS: Of 3392 abstracts evaluated, 83 studies were included in the SLR (15 974 patients, females 89.9%). Eligible studies included domains and instruments pertinent to all core areas defined by the OMERACT, except for 'societal/resource use'. The most common core areas were 'manifestations/abnormalities', covering 10 domains pertinent to laboratory and instrumental markers, indexes and neuropsychiatric dimension (cognitive, neurologic and psychiatric field), and 'life impact', covering 7 domains related to physical function (from both the perspective of the patient and the physician), pain and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed great heterogeneity in the instruments derived from populations with NPSLE and none of these had high-quality evidence. This supports the need to develop and further validate a core domain set and outcome measurement instruments to promote clinical research in this field, enhancing comparability across studies.

Italian recommendations for influenza and pneumococcal vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for vaccination against influenza virus and S. pneumoniae in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). METHODS: A Consensus Committee including physicians with expertise in rheumatic and infectious diseases was established by two Italian scientific societies, Società Italiana di Reumatologia (SIR) and Società Italiana di Malattie Infettive e Tropicali (SIMIT). The experts were invited to develop evidence-based recommendations concerning vaccinations in ARDs patients, based on their clinical status before and after undergoing immunosuppressive treatments. Key clinical questions were formulated for the systematic literature reviews, based on the clinical pathway. A search was made in Medline (via PubMed) according to the original MeSH strategy from October 2009 and a keyword strategy from January 2016 up to December 2017, updating existing EULAR recommendations. Specific recommendations were separately voted and scored from 0 (no agreement with) to 100 (maximal agreement) and supporting evidence graded. The mean and standard deviation of the scores were calculated to determine the level of agreement among the experts' panel for each recommendation. Total cumulative agreement ≥70 defined consensus for each statement. RESULTS: Nine recommendations, based on 6 key clinical questions addressed by the expert committee, were proposed. The aim of this work is to integrate the 2011 EULAR recommendations on vaccination against influenza and S. pneumoniae in ARDs patients. An implementation plan was proposed to improve the vaccination status of these patients and their safety during immunosuppressive treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza and pneumococcus vaccinations are effective and safe in patients with ARDs. More efforts should be made to translate the accumulated evidence into practice.

Rheumatoid Arthritis and Cardiovascular Risk: Retrospective Matched-Cohort Analysis Based on the RECORD Study of the Italian Society for Rheumatology.

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with an increase in cardiovascular (CV) risk. This issue maybe not only explained by a genetic component, as well as by the traditional CV risk factors, but also by an underestimation and undertreatment of concomitant CV comorbidities. Method: This was a retrospective matched-cohort analysis in the Italian RA real-world population based on the healthcare-administrative databases to assess the CV risk factors and incidence of CV events in comparison with the general population. Persistence and adherence to the CV therapy were also evaluated in both groups. Results: In a RA cohort (N = 21,201), there was a greater prevalence of hypertension and diabetes with respect to the non-RA subjects (N = 249,156) (36.9 vs. 33.4% and 10.2 vs. 9.6%, respectively), while dyslipidemia was more frequent in the non-RA group (15.4 vs. 16.5%). Compared with a non-RA cohort, the patients with RA had a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.28), heart failure (IRR 1.53), stroke (IRR 1.19), and myocardial infarction (IRR 1.48). The patients with RA presented a significantly lower persistence rate to glucose-lowering and lipid-lowering therapies than the controls (odds ratio, OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.6-0.8] and OR 0.82 [0.8-0.9], respectively). The difference in the adherence to glucose-lowering therapy was significant (OR 0.7 [0.6-0.8]), conversely no statistically significant differences emerged regarding the adherence to lipid-lowering therapy (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.8-1.0]) and anti-hypertensive therapy (OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.9-1.0]). Conclusion: The patients with RA have a higher risk of developing CV events compared with the general population, partially explained by the excess and undertreatment of CV risk factors.

The Role of the Multidisciplinary Evaluation of Interstitial Lung Diseases: Systematic Literature Review of the Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.

The opportunity of a multidisciplinary evaluation for the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonias highlighted a major change in the diagnostic approach to diffuse lung disease. The new American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Latin American Thoracic Society guidelines for the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have reinforced this assumption and have underlined that the exclusion of connective tissue disease related lung involvement is mandatory, with obvious clinical and therapeutic impact. The multidisciplinary team discussion consists in a moment of interaction among the radiologist, pathologist and pulmonologist, also including the rheumatologist when considered necessary, to improve diagnostic agreement and optimize the definition of those cases in which pulmonary involvement may represent the first or prominent manifestation of an autoimmune systemic disease. Moreover, the proposal of classification criteria for interstitial lung disease with autoimmune features (IPAF) represents an effort to define lung involvement in clinically undefined autoimmune conditions. The complexity of autoimmune diseases, and in particular the lack of classification criteria defined for pathologies such as anti-synthetase syndrome, makes the involvement of the rheumatologist essential for the correct interpretation of the autoimmune element and for the application of classification criteria, that could replace clinical pictures initially interpreted as IPAF in defined autoimmune disease, minimizing the risk of misdiagnosis. The aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence about the efficiency and efficacy of different multidisciplinary team approaches, in order to standardize the professional figures and the core set procedures that should be necessary for a correct approach in diagnosing patients with interstitial lung disease.