SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Outcomes in Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID-19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel-Haenszel formula with random effects models. RESULTS: Of the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta-analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16-2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08-2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID-19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD. CONCLUSION: Patients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and an increased mortality rate.

Antirheumatic Disease Therapies for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Antirheumatic disease therapies have been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its complications. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to describe the current evidence. METHODS: A search of published and preprint databases in all languages was performed. Included studies described ≥1 relevant clinical outcome for ≥5 patients who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and were treated with antirheumatic disease therapy between January 1, 2019 and May 29, 2020. Pairs of reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A meta-analysis of effect sizes using random-effects models was performed when possible. RESULTS: The search identified 3,935 articles, of which 45 were included (4 randomized controlled trials, 29 cohort studies, and 12 case series). All studies evaluated hospitalized patients, and 29 of the 45 studies had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. In a meta-analysis of 3 cohort studies with a low risk of bias, hydroxychloroquine use was not significantly associated with mortality (pooled hazard ratio [HR] 1.41 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.83, 2.42]). In a meta-analysis of 2 cohort studies with some concerns/higher risk of bias, anakinra use was associated with lower mortality (pooled HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.12, 0.52]). Evidence was inconclusive with regard to other antirheumatic disease therapies, and the majority of other studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with benefit or harm regarding COVID-19 mortality. The evidence supporting the effect of other antirheumatic disease therapies in COVID-19 is currently inconclusive.

Acute respiratory viral adverse events during use of antirheumatic disease therapies: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is an acute respiratory viral infection that threatens people worldwide, including people with rheumatic disease, although it remains unclear to what extent various antirheumatic disease therapies increase susceptibility to complications of viral respiratory infections. OBJECTIVE: The present study undertakes a scoping review of available evidence regarding the frequency and severity of acute respiratory viral adverse events related to antirheumatic disease therapies. METHODS: Online databases were used to identify, since database inception, studies reporting primary data on acute respiratory viral infections in patients utilizing antirheumatic disease therapies. Independent reviewer pairs charted data from eligible studies using a standardized data abstraction tool. RESULTS: A total of 180 studies were eligible for qualitative analysis. While acknowledging that the extant literature has a lack of specificity in reporting of acute viral infections or complications thereof, the data suggest that use of glucocorticoids, JAK inhibitors (especially high-dose), TNF inhibitors, and anti-IL-17 agents may be associated with an increased frequency of respiratory viral events. Available data suggest no increased frequency or risk of respiratory viral events with NSAIDs, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, or apremilast. One large cohort study demonstrated an association with leflunomide use and increased risk of acute viral respiratory events compared to non-use. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified that some medication classes may confer increased risk of acute respiratory viral infections. However, definitive data are lacking and future studies should address this knowledge gap.

Antiphospholipid antibodies and the risk of thrombocytopenia in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: According to criteria for the classification of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), thrombocytopenia is one of the disease-defining hematologic disorders. Since the recognition of Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS), thrombocytopenia was frequently reported but several studies yielded contradictory results on the association between aPL-positivity and thrombocytopenia. METHODS: We evaluated the role of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and different aPL profiles on the risk of thrombocytopenia in SLE patients by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature from 1987 to 2018. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, congress abstracts, and reference lists of eligible studies were searched. Studies were selected if they included SLE patients with descriptions of the exposure to aPL and the outcomes (thrombocytopenia). Two reviewers extracted study characteristics and outcome data from published reports. Estimates were pooled using random effects models and sensitivity analyses. We followed the PRISMA guidelines for all stages of the meta-analysis. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015027378. RESULTS: From 3278 articles identified, 53 studies met inclusion criteria amounting to 9019 SLE patients. Twenty-nine percent of aPL-positive SLE patients had thrombocytopenia compared to 15.1% in aPL-negative SLE patients. The overall pooled Odds Ratio (OR) for thrombocytopenia in aPL positive patients was 2.48 (95% CI; 2.10-2.93). Among aPL subtypes, the risk of thrombocytopenia was highest for lupus anticoagulant (OR = 3.56 [95% CI, 2.57-5.25]), IgM anti-ß2-GP1(OR = 2.87 [95% CI; 2.57-5.25]), IgG and IgM anticardiolipin antibodies (OR = 1.87 [95% CI; 1.52-2.31] and OR = 1.73 [95% CI; 1.36-2.19] respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of thrombocytopenia was strongly determined by various aPL profiles in SLE patients. While the association between IgM antibodies and other APS manifestations including thrombosis is debated, IgM isotypes are helpful in the risk stratification of thrombocytopenia in SLE.