Managing Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk Associated with JAK Inhibitors.

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have enormous appeal as immune-modulating therapies across many chronic inflammatory diseases, but recently this promise has been overshadowed by questions regarding associated cardiovascular and cancer risk emerging from the ORAL Surveillance phase 3b/4 post-marketing requirement randomized controlled trial. In that study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis with existing cardiovascular risk, tofacitinib, the first JAKi registered for chronic inflammatory disease, failed to meet non-inferiority thresholds when compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors for both incident major adverse cardiovascular events and incident cancer. While this result was unexpected by many, subsequently published observational data have also supported this finding. Notably, however, such a risk has largely not yet been demonstrated in patients outside the specific clinical situation examined in the trial, even in the face of many studies examining this. Nevertheless, this signal has practically re-aligned approaches to both tofacitinib and other JAKi to varying extents, in other patient populations and contexts: within rheumatoid arthritis, but also in psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, atopic dermatitis, and beyond. Application to individual patients can be more challenging but remains important to harness the substantive potential of JAKi to the maximum extent safely possible. This review not only explores the evolution of the regulatory response to the signal, its informing data, biological plausibility, and its impact on guidelines, but also the many factors that clinicians must consider in navigating cardiovascular and cancer risk for their patients considering JAKi as immune-modulating therapy.

Which clinical research questions are the most important? Development and preliminary validation of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus. RESULTS: The ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, p<0.001) and journal impact factor group (OR 6.78, 95% CI 3.17 to 14.50 for 3rd tertile compared to 1st tertile of ANZMUSC-RQIT scores) for 200 published musculoskeletal clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question.

Outcomes of COVID-19 in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease in Ireland over the first 2 years of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Poor COVID-19 outcomes occur with higher frequency in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD). Better understanding of the factors involved is crucial to informing patients and clinicians regarding risk mitigation. AIM: To describe COVID-19 outcomes for people with RMD in Ireland over the first 2 years of the pandemic. METHODS: Data entered into the C19-GRA provider registry from Ireland between 24th March 2020 and 31st March 2022 were analysed. Differences in the likelihood of hospitalisation and mortality according to demographic and clinical variables were investigated. RESULTS: Of 237 cases included, 59.9% were female, 95 (41.3%) were hospitalised, and 22 (9.3%) died. Hospitalisation was more common with increasing age, gout, smoking, long-term glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and specific comorbidities of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, and cancer. Hospitalisation was less frequent in people with inflammatory arthritis and conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use. Hospitalisation had a U-shaped relationship with disease activity, being more common in both high disease activity and remission. Mortality was more common with increasing age, gout, smoking, long-term glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and specific comorbidities of cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and obesity. Inflammatory arthritis was less frequent in those who died. CONCLUSION: Hospitalisation or death were more frequently experienced by RMD patients with increasing age, certain comorbidities including potentially modifiable ones, and certain medications and diagnoses amongst other factors. These are important 'indicators' that can help risk-stratify and inform the management of RMD patients.

Systematic review of colchicine neuromyopathy: Risk factors, duration and resolution.

OBJECTIVE: To identify reports of colchicine-induced neuropathy and myopathy and ascertain risk factors associated with this toxicity at commonly used doses. METHODS: A systematic review of case reports was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA methodology). PubMed and EMBASE were searched through October 2021 for case reports of neuropathy and/or myopathy associated with the use of colchicine at therapeutic doses. RESULTS: A total of 143 cases of neuromyopathy from 99 articles were identified as having a "definite" or "probable" association with colchicine usage, as assessed by the Naranjo algorithm. Most of these cases presented with features of both neuropathy and myopathy (n=72, 51%) but symptoms of myopathy were predominant. The mean total daily dose was 1.25±0.60 mg and 48% had been taking colchicine for more than 12 months before presenting with neuromyopathy. A total of 117 (82%) of all reports had either a significant co-morbidity or possible colchicine drug-drug interaction, while 57 (40%) had both risk factors. A total of 26 cases (18%) had no significant risk factor but only 15 of these reports contained complete descriptions of the patient's co-morbidities and co-medications. Cessation of colchicine generally led to complete resolution of symptoms in 70% of cases within a median of 21 days. There were 3 deaths reported which were due to multi-organ failure despite cessation of colchicine and medical management. Colchicine was restarted at reduced doses in 15 cases and 73% had no symptom recurrence. CONCLUSION: Neuromyopathy is an uncommon but reported adverse effect of colchicine. Cases generally present with proximal myopathy symptoms. Cases of colchicine neuromyopathy are largely reported in patients on commonly used doses. Renal and hepatic dysfunction and medications that inhibit cytochrome P450 3A4 isozyme (CYP3A4) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) appear to be the most significant risk factors. Fortunately, cessation of colchicine generally leads to complete resolution of symptoms. Recommencement of colchicine at reduced doses appeared to be usually safe.

Association Between Race/Ethnicity and COVID-19 Outcomes in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Patients From the United States: Data From the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between race/ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes in individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Individuals with SLE from the US with data entered into the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry between March 24, 2020 and August 27, 2021 were included. Variables included age, sex, race, and ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, other), comorbidities, disease activity, pandemic time period, glucocorticoid dose, antimalarials, and immunosuppressive drug use. The ordinal outcome categories were: not hospitalized, hospitalized with no oxygenation, hospitalized with any ventilation or oxygenation, and death. We constructed ordinal logistic regression models evaluating the relationship between race/ethnicity and COVID-19 severity, adjusting for possible confounders. RESULTS: We included 523 patients; 473 (90.4%) were female and the mean ± SD age was 46.6 ± 14.0 years. A total of 358 patients (74.6%) were not hospitalized; 40 patients (8.3%) were hospitalized without oxygen, 64 patients (13.3%) were hospitalized with any oxygenation, and 18 (3.8%) died. In a multivariable model, Black (odds ratio [OR] 2.73 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.36-5.53]) and Hispanic (OR 2.76 [95% CI 1.34-5.69]) individuals had higher odds of more severe outcomes than White individuals. CONCLUSION: Black and Hispanic individuals with SLE experienced more severe COVID-19 outcomes, which is consistent with findings in the US general population. These results likely reflect socioeconomic and health disparities and suggest that more aggressive efforts are needed to prevent and treat infection in this population.

Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Gout Flare in Patients Hospitalized for PCR-Confirmed COVID-19: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to describe the prevalence and outcomes of gout flare in patients with comorbid gout hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Factors associated with gout flare and hospital length of stay were explored. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adults with comorbid gout who were hospitalized for PCR-confirmed COVID-19 between March 2020 and December 2021 in 3 hospitals in Thailand. Prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of gout flare were described. Factors associated with gout flare were explored using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator selection and multivariate logistic regression. The association between gout flare and hospital length of stay was explored using multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: Among 8697 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 146 patients with comorbid gout were identified and gout flare occurred in 26 (18%). Compared to those without flare, patients with gout flare had higher baseline serum urate and lower prevalence of use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare prophylaxis medications. One-third of gout flare episodes were treated with ≥ 2 antiinflammatory medications. Logistic regression identified GOUT-36 rule ≥ 2, a predictive index for inpatient gout flare, as the only factor associated with gout flare (odds ratio 5.46, 95% CI 1.18-25.37). Gout flare was found to be independently associated with hospital length of stay and added 3 days to hospital course. CONCLUSION: Gout flare occurred in 18% of patients with comorbid gout hospitalized for COVID-19 and added up to 3 days to hospital length of stay. Patients with suboptimal ULT appeared to be at high risk for gout flare during COVID-19 hospitalization.

Examining the Characteristics of Colchicine-Induced Myelosuppression in Clinical Cases: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The use of colchicine has been associated with varying degrees of myelosuppression. Despite expanded use in cardiovascular and inflammatory conditions, there remains clinician concern because of potential myelosuppressive side effects. A systematic review was conducted to explore the reported myelosuppressive events of colchicine. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the MeSH terms ("colchicine") AND ("myelosuppression," "bone*," "marrow," "suppression," "aplasia," "leukopenia/leucopenia," "lymphopenia," "neutropenia") on September 1, 2020, and was updated on November 30, 2021. The search was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The search included references published from 1978 to 2020 and was limited to English-language observational studies (ie, case reports, case series, case control studies, and cohort studies) or trial data. RESULTS: In total, 3233 articles were screened, with 30 studies of 47 patients with myelosuppression from colchicine identified. Most patients with myelosuppression had comorbidities, including renal impairment (21/47, 44.7%). Out of 47 patients, 15 (31.9%) and 13 (27.7%) were reported to be concurrently taking cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inhibitors and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) efflux transporter inhibitors, respectively. Patients with renal impairment accounted for the majority of overall patients taking these CYP3A4 and P-gp inhibitors (8/15, 53.3%, and 8/13, 61.5%, respectively). Out of 21 patients with renal impairment, 13 had worsening cytopenia during colchicine use. The presentations ranged from moderate anemia (grade 2) to severe thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and leukopenia (grade 4). CONCLUSION: Colchicine has few reports of myelosuppression. The majority of patients with myelosuppression had preexisting renal impairment or concomitant CYP3A4 or P-gp inhibitor use. Caution should be taken in this subset of patients with increased monitoring.

Equity Considerations in COVID-19 Vaccination Studies of Individuals With Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the extent to which populations experiencing inequities were considered in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). METHODS: We included all studies (n = 19) from an ongoing Cochrane living systematic review on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AIRDs. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital, plus: age, multimorbidity, and health literacy) to identify factors that stratify health outcomes. We assessed equity considerations in relation to differences in COVID-19 baseline risk, eligibility criteria, and description of participant characteristics and attrition, controlling for confounding factors, subgroup analyses, and applicability of findings. RESULTS: All 19 studies were cohort studies that followed individuals with AIRDs after vaccination. Three studies (16%) described differences in baseline risk for COVID-19 across age. Two studies (11%) defined eligibility criteria based on occupation and age. All 19 studies described participant age and sex. Twelve studies (67%) controlled for age and/or sex as confounders. Eight studies (47%) conducted subgroup analyses across at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age. Ten studies (53%) interpreted applicability in relation to at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age (47%), then ethnicity (16%), sex (16%), and multimorbidity (11%). CONCLUSION: Sex and age were the most frequently considered PROGRESS-Plus factors in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with AIRDs. The generalizability of evidence to populations experiencing inequities is uncertain. Future COVID-19 vaccine studies should report participant characteristics in more detail to inform guideline recommendations.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in inflammatory arthritis patients: serial surveys from a large longitudinal national Australian cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To determine COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rates in inflammatory arthritis patients and identify factors associated with changing vaccine hesitancy over time. METHODS: This investigation was a prospective cohort study of inflammatory arthritis patients from community and public hospital outpatient rheumatology clinics enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD). Two surveys were conducted, one immediately prior to (pre-pandemic) and another approximately 1 year after the start of the pandemic (follow-up). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy was measured at follow-up, and general vaccine hesitancy was inferred pre-pandemic; these were used to identify factors associated with fixed and changing vaccine beliefs, including sources of information and broader beliefs about medication. RESULTS: Of the 594 participants who completed both surveys, 74 (12%) were COVID-19 vaccine hesitant. This was associated with pre-pandemic beliefs about medications being harmful (P < 0.001) and overused (P = 0.002), with stronger beliefs resulting in vaccine hesitancy persistent over two time points (P = 0.008, P = 0.005). For those not vaccine hesitant pre-pandemic, the development of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with a lower likelihood of seeking out vaccine information from health-care professionals (P < 0.001). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was not associated with new influenza vaccine hesitancy (P = 0.138). CONCLUSION: In this study of vaccine beliefs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in inflammatory arthritis patients varied, depending on vaccine attitudes immediately prior to the start of the pandemic. Fixed beliefs reflected broader views about medications, while fluid beliefs were highly influenced by whether they sought out information from health-care professionals, including rheumatologists.

Attitudes and practices in the laboratory monitoring of conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs by rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees.

OBJECTIVES: There is scant research about laboratory monitoring in people taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for rheumatic disease. Our objective was to conduct a scoping study to assess the range of current attitudes and the variation in practice of laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs by rheumatologists and trainees. METHODS: Australian and overseas rheumatologists or trainees were invited through newsletter, Twitter and personal e-mail, to complete an anonymous online survey between 1 February and 22 March 2021. Questions focused on laboratory tests requested by csDMARD prescribed, frequency/pattern of monitoring, influence of additional factors and combination therapy, actions in response to abnormal tests, and attitudes to monitoring frequencies. Results were presented descriptively and analysed using linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 221 valid responses. Most respondents were from Australia (n = 53, 35%) followed by the US (n = 39, 26%), with a slight preponderance of women (n = 84, 56%), ≥ 11 years in rheumatology practice (n = 83, 56%) and in mostly public practice (n = 79, 53%). Respondents had a wide variation in the frequency and scheduling of tests. In general, respondents reported increasing monitoring frequency if patients had numerous comorbidities or if both methotrexate and leflunomide were being taken concurrently. There was a wide variety of responses to abnormal monitoring results and 27 (40%) considered that in general, monitoring tests are performed too frequently. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated a wide variation in the frequency of testing, factors that should influence this, and what responses to abnormal test results are appropriate, indicates a likely lack of evidence and the need to define the risks, benefits and costs of different csDMARD monitoring regimens.

Factors associated with severe COVID-19 in people with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate factors associated with severe COVID-19 in people with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM). METHODS: Demographic data, clinical characteristics and COVID-19 outcome severity of adults with IIM were obtained from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry. A 3-point ordinal COVID-19 severity scale was defined: (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation (and no death) and (3) death. ORs were estimated using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed using a 4-point ordinal scale: (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation with no oxygen (and no death), (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation (and no death) and 4) death. RESULTS: Of 348 patients, 48% were not hospitalised, 39% were hospitalised (and did not die) and 13% died. Older age (OR=1.59/decade, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.91), high disease activity (OR=3.50, 95% CI 1.25 to 9.83; vs remission), ≥2 comorbidities (OR=2.63, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.98; vs none), prednisolone-equivalent dose >7.5 mg/day (OR=2.40, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.28; vs no intake) and exposure to rituximab (OR=2.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.72; vs conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only) were independently associated with severe COVID-19. In addition to these variables, in the sensitivity analyses, male sex (OR range: 1.65-1.83; vs female) was also significantly associated with severe outcomes, while COVID-19 diagnosis after 1 October 2020 (OR range: 0.51-0.59; vs on/before 15 June 2020) was significantly associated with less severe outcomes, but these associations were not significant in the main model (OR=1.57, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.59; and OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.00; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large registry data on outcomes of COVID-19 in people with IIM. Older age, male sex, higher comorbidity burden, high disease activity, prednisolone-equivalent dose >7.5 mg/day and rituximab exposure were associated with severe COVID-19. These findings will enable risk stratification and inform management decisions for patients with IIM.

Prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration, defined as lasting 28 days or longer, among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: We analysed data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey (2 April 2021-15 October 2021) to identify people with SARDs reporting test-confirmed COVID-19. Participants reported COVID-19 severity and symptom duration, sociodemographics and clinical characteristics. We reported the proportion experiencing prolonged symptom duration and investigated associations with baseline characteristics using logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 441 respondents with SARDs and COVID-19 (mean age 48.2 years, 83.7% female, 39.5% rheumatoid arthritis). The median COVID-19 symptom duration was 15 days (IQR 7, 25). Overall, 107 (24.2%) respondents had prolonged symptom duration (≥28 days); 42/429 (9.8%) reported symptoms lasting ≥90 days. Factors associated with higher odds of prolonged symptom duration included: hospitalisation for COVID-19 vs not hospitalised and mild acute symptoms (age-adjusted OR (aOR) 6.49, 95% CI 3.03 to 14.1), comorbidity count (aOR 1.11 per comorbidity, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21) and osteoarthritis (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.27). COVID-19 onset in 2021 vs June 2020 or earlier was associated with lower odds of prolonged symptom duration (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81). CONCLUSION: Most people with SARDs had complete symptom resolution by day 15 after COVID-19 onset. However, about 1 in 4 experienced COVID-19 symptom duration 28 days or longer; 1 in 10 experienced symptoms 90 days or longer. Future studies are needed to investigate the possible relationships between immunomodulating medications, SARD type/flare, vaccine doses and novel viral variants with prolonged COVID-19 symptoms and other postacute sequelae of COVID-19 among people with SARDs.

Certolizumab Pegol Treatment in Patients with Axial-Spondyloarthritis-Associated Acute Anterior Uveitis: a Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Acute anterior uveitis (AAU) affects up to 40% of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). An effective treatment for patients with axSpA that reduces the risk of AAU flares while also targeting axial symptoms is therefore highly desirable. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) have been shown effective for treatment of axSpA and AAU occurrence, with guidelines conditionally recommending treating patients with axSpA and associated AAU with TNFi monoclonal antibodies. To date, most available data on the impact of TNFis on AAU in axSpA are from observational, open-label studies without parallel comparator arms. However, there is a growing body of evidence describing the impact of the TNFi certolizumab pegol (CZP) on the incidence of axSpA-associated AAU. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to collate data pertaining to the impact of CZP in axSpA-associated AAU in patients across the full axSpA spectrum. METHODS: Data were obtained from four industry-supported phase 3 and 4 clinical trials (C-VIEW, C-axSpAnd, C-OPTIMISE, and RAPID-axSpA). To supplement these data, a targeted literature review was performed through searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and reference lists. RESULTS: Available data from 1467 patients from the C-VIEW, C-axSpAnd, C-OPTIMISE, and RAPID-axSpA trials show CZP to be effective in AAU in patients across the full axSpA spectrum, reducing AAU flares when compared with placebo or pretreatment period. No differences in AAU outcomes were reported when stratified by axSpA subgroup age or sex. The targeted literature review identified six further studies of CZP in spondyloarthritis-associated AAU, only one of which was specific to axSpA. CONCLUSION: CZP was effective in reducing AAU incidence in clinical trials with patients with axSpA. The targeted literature review, however, highlighted that there remains a paucity of data beyond these trials. Data from comparative studies would further enhance the body of evidence on the effects of CZP in patients with axSpA who develop AAU.

Environmental and societal factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic disease: an observational study.

Background: Differences in the distribution of individual-level clinical risk factors across regions do not fully explain the observed global disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to investigate the associations between environmental and societal factors and country-level variations in mortality attributed to COVID-19 among people with rheumatic disease globally. Methods: In this observational study, we derived individual-level data on adults (aged 18-99 years) with rheumatic disease and a confirmed status of their highest COVID-19 severity level from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) registry, collected between March 12, 2020, and Aug 27, 2021. Environmental and societal factors were obtained from publicly available sources. The primary endpoint was mortality attributed to COVID-19. We used a multivariable logistic regression to evaluate independent associations between environmental and societal factors and death, after controlling for individual-level risk factors. We used a series of nested mixed-effects models to establish whether environmental and societal factors sufficiently explained country-level variations in death. Findings: 14 044 patients from 23 countries were included in the analyses. 10 178 (72·5%) individuals were female and 3866 (27·5%) were male, with a mean age of 54·4 years (SD 15·6). Air pollution (odds ratio 1·10 per 10 µg/m3 [95% CI 1·01-1·17]; p=0·0105), proportion of the population aged 65 years or older (1·19 per 1% increase [1·10-1·30]; p<0·0001), and population mobility (1·03 per 1% increase in number of visits to grocery and pharmacy stores [1·02-1·05]; p<0·0001 and 1·02 per 1% increase in number of visits to workplaces [1·00-1·03]; p=0·032) were independently associated with higher odds of mortality. Number of hospital beds (0·94 per 1-unit increase per 1000 people [0·88-1·00]; p=0·046), human development index (0·65 per 0·1-unit increase [0·44-0·96]; p=0·032), government response stringency (0·83 per 10-unit increase in containment index [0·74-0·93]; p=0·0018), as well as follow-up time (0·78 per month [0·69-0·88]; p<0·0001) were independently associated with lower odds of mortality. These factors sufficiently explained country-level variations in death attributable to COVID-19 (intraclass correlation coefficient 1·2% [0·1-9·5]; p=0·14). Interpretation: Our findings highlight the importance of environmental and societal factors as potential explanations of the observed regional disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among people with rheumatic disease and lay foundation for a new research agenda to address these disparities. Funding: American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.