Anti-KIF20B autoantibodies are associated with cranial neuropathy in systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Cranial neuropathies (CN) are a rare neuropsychiatric SLE (NPSLE) manifestation. Previous studies reported that antibodies to the kinesin family member 20B (KIF20B) (anti-KIF20B) protein were associated with idiopathic ataxia and CN. We assessed anti-KIF20B as a potential biomarker for NPSLE in an international SLE inception cohort. METHODS: Individuals fulfilling the revised 1997 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria were enrolled from 31 centres from 1999 to 2011 and followed annually in the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort. Anti-KIF20B testing was performed on baseline (within 15 months of diagnosis or first annual visit) samples using an addressable laser bead immunoassay. Logistic regression (penalised maximum likelihood and adjusting for confounding variables) examined the association between anti-KIF20B and NPSLE manifestations (1999 ACR case definitions), including CN, occurring over the first 5 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 1827 enrolled cohort members, baseline serum and 5 years of follow-up data were available on 795 patients who were included in this study: 29.8% were anti-KIF20B-positive, 88.7% female, and 52.1% White. The frequency of anti-KIF20B positivity differed only for those with CN (n=10) versus without CN (n=785) (70.0% vs 29.3%; OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.4, 18.5). Compared with patients without CN, patients with CN were more likely to fulfil the ACR haematological (90.0% vs 66.1%; difference 23.9%, 95% CI 5.0%, 42.8%) and ANA (100% vs 95.7%; difference 4.3%, 95% CI 2.9%, 5.8%) criteria. In the multivariate analysis adjusting for age at baseline, female, White race and ethnicity, and ACR haematological and ANA criteria, anti-KIF20B positivity remained associated with CN (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.4, 19.1). CONCLUSION: Anti-KIF20B is a potential biomarker for SLE-related CN. Further studies are needed to examine how autoantibodies against KIF20B, which is variably expressed in a variety of neurological cells, contribute to disease pathogenesis.

Blood immunophenotyping identifies distinct kidney histopathology and outcomes in patients with lupus nephritis.

Lupus nephritis (LN) is a frequent manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus, and fewer than half of patients achieve complete renal response with standard immunosuppressants. Identifying non-invasive, blood-based pathologic immune alterations associated with renal injury could aid therapeutic decisions. Here, we used mass cytometry immunophenotyping of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in 145 patients with biopsy-proven LN and 40 healthy controls to evaluate the heterogeneity of immune activation in patients with LN and to identify correlates of renal parameters and treatment response. Unbiased analysis identified 3 immunologically distinct groups of patients with LN that were associated with different patterns of histopathology, renal cell infiltrates, urine proteomic profiles, and treatment response at one year. Patients with enriched circulating granzyme B+ T cells at baseline showed more severe disease and increased numbers of activated CD8 T cells in the kidney, yet they had the highest likelihood of treatment response. A second group characterized primarily by a high type I interferon signature had a lower likelihood of response to therapy, while a third group appeared immunologically inactive by immunophenotyping at enrollment but with chronic renal injuries. Main immune profiles could be distilled down to 5 simple cytometric parameters that recapitulate several of the associations, highlighting the potential for blood immune profiling to translate to clinically useful non-invasive metrics to assess immune-mediated disease in LN.

What Bedside Skills Could the Modern Rheumatologist Possess? Part II. "Certain Technical Procedures".

ABSTRACT: Rheumatologists have never been reluctant to adopt procedures that might enhance their diagnostic or therapeutic powers. Their propensity to penetrate the joints of the patients they were treating set them apart from the general internist. Since the 1980s, when a chance to look inside the joints they were treating attracted a few rheumatologists, other things that could be done at the bedside emerged with now an array of bedside procedures that could be part of a rheumatologist's skill set. Besides gains in diagnosis and/or therapy, each constitutes a chance to restore the physical contact between physician and patient, riven by factors of the last decade, such as electronic medical records and COVID. With such contact so important to satisfaction of the patient and physician alike, acquisition of proficiency in certain technical procedures described herein offers one path to begin restoring rheumatology to the richly fulfilling practice it once was.

What Bedside Skills Could the Modern Rheumatologist Possess? Part I. The Basics.

ABSTRACT: The hands-on aspect of rheumatologic practice serves to balance its more cerebral features with the everyday necessity to touch patients to assess their condition, obtain samples for diagnosis, and deliver therapy, all cementing the important bond between patient and physician. Factors over recent years, ranging from the intercession of the electronic medical record to COVID, have weakened this bond, which we must restore if the practice of rheumatology is to return to previous levels of satisfaction. We review herein, in 2 parts, the many ways rheumatologists may interact physically with patients, with hope that pursuit of these measures can enhance satisfaction of physician and patient alike. This first installment reviews those simple skills in place before more involved technical bedside skill began to evolve over the last half century.

Association Between Severe Nonadherence to Hydroxychloroquine and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Flares, Damage, and Mortality in 660 Patients From the SLICC Inception Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to assess the associations of severe nonadherence to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), objectively assessed by HCQ serum levels, and risks of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares, damage, and mortality rates over five years of follow-up. METHODS: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) Inception Cohort is an international multicenter initiative (33 centers throughout 11 countries). The serum of patients prescribed HCQ for at least three months at enrollment were analyzed. Severe nonadherence was defined by a serum HCQ level <106 ng/mL or <53 ng/mL for HCQ doses of 400 or 200 mg/day, respectively. Associations with the risk of a flare (defined as a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 increase ≥4 points, initiation of prednisone or immunosuppressive drugs, or new renal involvement) were studied with logistic regression, and associations with damage (first SLICC/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index [SDI] increase ≥1 point) and mortality with separate Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Of the 1,849 cohort participants, 660 patients (88% women) were included. Median (interquartile range) serum HCQ was 388 ng/mL (244-566); 48 patients (7.3%) had severe HCQ nonadherence. No covariates were clearly associated with severe nonadherence, which was, however, independently associated with both flare (odds ratio 3.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.80-6.42) and an increase in the SDI within each of the first three years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.92 at three years; 95% CI 1.05-3.50). Eleven patients died within five years, including 3 with severe nonadherence (crude HR 5.41; 95% CI 1.43-20.39). CONCLUSION: Severe nonadherence was independently associated with the risks of an SLE flare in the following year, early damage, and five-year mortality.

Baricitinib for systemic lupus erythematosus: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (SLE-BRAVE-II).

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and 2 approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, and alopecia areata. In a 24-week phase 2 study in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), baricitinib 4 mg significantly improved SLE disease activity compared with placebo. In this Article, we report the evaluation of efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with SLE in a 52-week phase 3 study. METHODS: In this phase 3 double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study, SLE-BRAVE-II, patients (aged ≥18 years) with active SLE receiving stable background therapy were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo once daily for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 response at week 52 in the baricitinib 4 mg treatment group compared with placebo. Glucocorticoid tapering was encouraged but not required per protocol. The primary endpoint was assessed by logistic regression analysis with baseline disease activity, baseline corticosteroid dose, region, and treatment group in the model. Efficacy analyses were done on an intention-to-treat population, comprising all participants who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of investigational product and who did not discontinue from the study for the reason of lost to follow-up at the first post-baseline visit. Safety analyses were done on all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of investigational product and who did not discontinue. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03616964, and is complete. FINDINGS: A total of 775 patients were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of baricitinib 4 mg (n=258), baricitinib 2 mg (n=261), or placebo (n=256). There was no difference in the primary efficacy outcome of the proportion of SRI-4 responders at week 52 between participants who received baricitinib 4mg (121 [47%]; odds ratio 1·07 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·53]; difference with placebo 1·5 [95% CI -7·1 to 10·2]), 2 mg (120 [46%]; 1·05 [0·73 to 1·50]; 0·8 [-7·9 to 9·4]) and placebo (116 [46%]). None of the major secondary endpoints, including glucocorticoid tapering and time to first severe flare, were met. Serious adverse events were observed in 29 (11%) participants in the baricitinib 4 mg group, 35 (13%) in the baricitinib 2 mg group, and 22 (9%) in the placebo group. The safety profile of baricitinib in patients with SLE was consistent with the known baricitinib safety profile. INTERPRETATION: Although phase 2 data suggested baricitinib as a potential treatment for patients with SLE, which was supported in SLE-BRAVE-I, this result was not replicated in SLE-BRAVE-II. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Assessing the Costs of Neuropsychiatric Disease in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Cohort Using Multistate Modeling.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate direct and indirect costs associated with neuropsychiatric (NP) events in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort. METHODS: NP events were documented annually using American College of Rheumatology definitions for NP events and attributed to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or non-SLE causes. Patients were stratified into 1 of 3 NP states (no, resolved, or new/ongoing NP event). Change in NP status was characterized by interstate transition rates using multistate modeling. Annual direct costs and indirect costs were based on health care use and impaired productivity over the preceding year. Annual costs associated with NP states and NP events were calculated by averaging all observations in each state and adjusted through random-effects regressions. Five- and 10-year costs for NP states were predicted by multiplying adjusted annual costs per state by expected state duration, forecasted using multistate modeling. RESULTS: A total of 1,697 patients (49% White race/ethnicity) were followed for a mean of 9.6 years. NP events (n = 1,971) occurred in 956 patients, 32% attributed to SLE. For SLE and non-SLE NP events, predicted annual, 5-, and 10-year direct costs and indirect costs were higher in new/ongoing versus no events. Direct costs were 1.5-fold higher and indirect costs 1.3-fold higher in new/ongoing versus no events. Indirect costs exceeded direct costs 3.0 to 5.2 fold. Among frequent SLE NP events, new/ongoing seizure disorder and cerebrovascular disease accounted for the largest increases in annual direct costs. For non-SLE NP events, new/ongoing polyneuropathy accounted for the largest increase in annual direct costs, and new/ongoing headache and mood disorder for the largest increases in indirect costs. CONCLUSION: Patients with new/ongoing SLE or non-SLE NP events incurred higher direct and indirect costs.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Extension Trial of the Long-Term Safety and Tolerability of Anifrolumab in Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To explore long-term safety and tolerability of anifrolumab 300 mg compared with placebo in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who completed a Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway (TULIP) trial and enrolled in the placebo-controlled 3-year long-term extension (LTE) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02794285). METHODS: In the blinded LTE study, patients continued anifrolumab 300 mg, switched from anifrolumab 150 mg to 300 mg, or were re-randomized from placebo to receive either anifrolumab 300 mg or to continue placebo, administered every 4 weeks. Primary comparisons in the LTE study were between patients who received anifrolumab 300 mg or placebo throughout the TULIP and LTE studies. For rare safety events, comparisons included patients who received any anifrolumab dose during TULIP or LTE. When exposure differed, exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) per 100 patient-years were calculated. RESULTS: In the LTE study, EAIRs of serious adverse events (SAEs) were 8.5 with anifrolumab compared with 11.2 with placebo; likewise, EAIRs of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were 2.5 versus 3.2, respectively. EAIRs of non-opportunistic serious infections were comparable between groups (3.7 with anifrolumab versus 3.6 with placebo). Exposure-adjusted event rates of COVID-related AEs, including asymptomatic infections, were 15.5 with anifrolumab compared with 9.8 with placebo. No COVID-related AEs occurred in fully vaccinated individuals. EAIRs of malignancy and major acute cardiovascular events were low and comparable between groups. Anifrolumab was associated with lower cumulative glucocorticoid use and greater mean improvement in the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000, compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: This LTE study represents the longest placebo-controlled clinical trial performed in SLE to date. No new safety findings were identified in the LTE study, supporting the favorable benefit-risk profile of anifrolumab for patients with moderate-to-severe SLE receiving standard therapy.

Phase 3, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, an anti-interleukin-12/23 p40 antibody, in a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled study of patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) despite receiving standard-of-care. METHODS: Active SLE patients (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) ≥6 during screening and SLEDAI-2K ≥4 for clinical features at week 0) despite receiving oral glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or immunomodulatory drugs were randomised (3:2) to receive ustekinumab (intravenous infusion ~6 mg/kg at week 0, followed by subcutaneous injections of ustekinumab 90 mg at week 8 and every 8 weeks) or placebo through week 48. The primary endpoint was SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 at week 52, and major secondary endpoints included time to flare through week 52 and SRI-4 at week 24. RESULTS: At baseline, 516 patients were randomised to placebo (n=208) or ustekinumab (n=308). Following the planned interim analysis, the sponsor discontinued the study due to lack of efficacy but no safety concerns. Efficacy analyses included 289 patients (placebo, n=116; ustekinumab, n=173) who completed or would have had a week 52 visit at study discontinuation. At week 52, 44% of ustekinumab patients and 56% of placebo patients had an SRI-4 response; there were no appreciable differences between the treatment groups in the major secondary endpoints. Through week 52, 28% of ustekinumab patients and 32% of placebo patients had a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group flare, with a mean time to first flare of 204.7 and 200.4 days, respectively. Through week 52, 70% of ustekinumab patients and 74% of placebo patients had ≥1 adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Ustekinumab did not demonstrate superiority over placebo in this population of adults with active SLE; adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of ustekinumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03517722.

Concordance and discordance in SLE clinical trial outcome measures: analysis of three anifrolumab phase 2/3 trials.

OBJECTIVES: In the anifrolumab systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) trial programme, there was one trial (TULIP-1) in which BILAG-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) responses favoured anifrolumab over placebo, but the SLE Responder Index (SRI(4)) treatment difference was not significant. We investigated the degree of concordance between BICLA and SRI(4) across anifrolumab trials in order to better understand drivers of discrepant SLE trial results. METHODS: TULIP-1, TULIP-2 (both phase 3) and MUSE (phase 2b) were randomised, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg every 4 weeks, 48 weeks; TULIP-1/TULIP-2: n=180; MUSE: n=99) or placebo (TULIP-1: n=184, TULIP-2: n=182; MUSE: n=102). Week 52 BICLA and SRI(4) outcomes were assessed for each patient. RESULTS: Most patients (78%-85%) had concordant BICLA and SRI(4) outcomes (Cohen's Kappa 0.6-0.7, nominal p<0.001). Dual BICLA/SRI(4) response rates favoured anifrolumab over placebo in TULIP-1, TULIP-2 and MUSE (all nominal p≤0.004). A discordant TULIP-1 BICLA non-responder/SRI(4) responder subgroup was identified (40/364, 11% of TULIP-1 population), comprising more patients receiving placebo (n=28) than anifrolumab (n=12). In this subgroup, placebo-treated patients had lower baseline disease activity, joint counts and glucocorticoid tapering rates, and more placebo-treated patients had arthritis response than anifrolumab-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Across trials, most patients had concordant BICLA/SRI(4) outcomes and dual BICLA/SRI(4) responses favoured anifrolumab. A BICLA non-responder/SRI(4) responder subgroup was identified where imbalances of key factors driving the BICLA/SRI(4) discordance (disease activity, glucocorticoid taper) disproportionately favoured the TULIP-1 placebo group. Careful attention to baseline disease activity and monitoring glucocorticoid taper variation will be essential in future SLE trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02446912 and NCT02446899.

Is It Time to Bring Back Knee Washout?

Washout of knee joint contents, whether by arthrotomy, arthroscopy, or percutaneous methods, can remove phlogistic material contributing to the problem at hand. Observations dating from the turn of the last century coupled with multiple trials suggest such that an intervention can be useful in the management of osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthropathies, crystal arthritis, and septic arthritis. We suggest that this intervention-applicable at the bedside with minimal cost, preparation, or expertise-be reconsidered as an adjunct in management of these disorders.

Anifrolumab efficacy and safety by type I interferon gene signature and clinical subgroups in patients with SLE: post hoc analysis of pooled data from two phase III trials.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) according to interferon gene signature (IFNGS), demographic and clinical subgroups. METHODS: We performed post hoc analyses of pooled data from the 52-week phase III TULIP-1/TULIP-2 placebo-controlled trials of intravenous anifrolumab in moderate-to-severe SLE. Outcomes were assessed in predefined subgroups: IFNGS (high/low), age, sex, body mass index, race, geographic region, age of onset, glucocorticoid use, disease activity and serological markers. RESULTS: In pooled data, patients received anifrolumab 300 mg (360/726) or placebo (366/726); 82.6% were IFNGS-high. IFNGS-high patients had greater baseline disease activity and were more likely to have abnormal serological markers versus IFNGS-low patients. In the total population, a greater proportion of patients treated with anifrolumab versus placebo achieved British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at week 52 (difference 16.6%; nominal p<0.001). BICLA response treatment differences with anifrolumab versus placebo were comparable to the total population across most predefined subgroups, including subgroups for baseline glucocorticoid dosage (<10/≥10 mg/day prednisone/equivalent) and for clinical disease activity (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score <10/≥10). Subgroups with larger treatment differences included IFNGS-high patients (18.2%), patients with abnormal baseline serological markers (23.1%) and Asian patients (29.2%). The safety profile of anifrolumab was similar across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study supports the consistent efficacy and safety of anifrolumab across a range of patients with moderate-to-severe SLE. In a few subgroups, small sample sizes limited conclusions from being drawn regarding the treatment benefit with anifrolumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02446912, NCT02446899.

Regarding Arthroscopy: Can Orthopedists and Rheumatologists Be Friends?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Rheumatologists' interest in arthroscopy began before the 1980s, when many era practitioners began to take up the procedure in earnest. Some of the important players in pre-World War II explorations of arthroscopy were rheumatologists, and the father of modern arthroscopy Makei Watanabe counted many rheumatologists among his postwar students, who were publishing about arthroscopic insights into rheumatic conditions in the 1960s and 1970s. We chose to review this evolution to demonstrate the diverging interests of rheumatologists and orthopedists in arthroscopy and emphasize the chances for reconciliation and cooperation. Methods involve our personal recollection and review of the literature. RESULTS: Guidelines for the practice of arthroscopy were published by the American Rheumatism Association (now the American College of Rheumatology) 7 years before similar guidelines appeared from the Arthroscopy Association of North America. American rheumatologists ceased arthroscopy when controlled trials showed no effect in osteoarthritis beyond placebo and biologics for synovitis virtually eliminated situations in which synovectomy might be considered. The research potential of arthroscopy has been realized mainly by European rheumatologists, although the ultrasound-guided biopsy is supplanting arthroscopy as means to secure synovium for investigation, despite the advantages of the latter, such as the ability to obtain larger amounts of tissue, select tissue based on macroscopic appearance, sample multiple area in the same joint, and deliver the potentially therapeutic effect of washout. New miniscopes suitable for office use could restore some of the lagging interest in arthroscopy for investigation. Orthopedists have generally been resistant to rheumatologists doing arthroscopy but would not be sharing any turf with rheumatologists using the miniscope. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that we orthopedists and rheumatologists could be friends as we enter this new phase of arthroscopy as we use the technique for different purposes.

Prediction of Hospitalizations in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Frailty Index.

OBJECTIVE: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) frailty index (FI) predicts mortality and damage accrual in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but its association with hospitalizations has not been described. Our objective was to estimate the association of baseline SLICC-FI values with future hospitalizations in the SLICC inception cohort. METHODS: Baseline SLICC-FI scores were calculated. The number and duration of inpatient hospitalizations during follow-up were recorded. Negative binomial regression was used to estimate the association between baseline SLICC-FI values and the rate of hospitalizations per patient-year of follow-up. Linear regression was used to estimate the association of baseline SLICC-FI scores with the proportion of follow-up time spent in the hospital. Multivariable models were adjusted for relevant baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The 1,549 patients with SLE eligible for this analysis were mostly female (88.7%), with a mean ± SD age of 35.7 ± 13.3 years and a median disease duration of 1.2 years (interquartile range 0.9-1.5) at baseline. Mean ± SD baseline SLICC-FI was 0.17 ± 0.08. During mean ± SD follow-up of 7.2 ± 3.7 years, 614 patients (39.6%) experienced 1,570 hospitalizations. Higher baseline SLICC-FI values (per 0.05 increment) were associated with more frequent hospitalizations during follow-up, with an incidence rate ratio of 1.21 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.13-1.30) after adjustment for baseline age, sex, glucocorticoid use, immunosuppressive use, ethnicity/location, SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score, SLICC/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index score, and disease duration. Among patients with ≥1 hospitalization, higher baseline SLICC-FI values predicted a greater proportion of follow-up time spent hospitalized (relative rate 1.09 [95% CI 1.02-1.16]). CONCLUSION: The SLICC-FI predicts future hospitalizations among incident SLE patients, further supporting the SLICC-FI as a valid health measure in SLE.

Clinical meaningfulness of a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment response in terms of patient-reported outcomes in moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus: a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials of anifrolumab.

BACKGROUND: The British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) is a validated global measure of treatment response in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical trials but does not include patient-reported outcomes. To evaluate the clinical meaningfulness of a BICLA response from the patient perspective, we aimed to analyse patient-reported outcomes by BICLA responses with anifrolumab or placebo in patients with moderate to severe SLE. METHODS: We did a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) trials of anifrolumab, which assessed health-related quality of life using the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36; version 2) and Lupus Quality of Life, fatigue using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), pain using the Numerical Rating Scale, and disease activity using Patient Global Assessment. Changes from baseline and proportions of patients reporting improvements in patient-reported outcomes greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to the normative values were compared in BICLA responders and non-responders and by treatment group (intravenous anifrolumab 300 mg or placebo). FINDINGS: 726 patients were included in the TULIP trials, of whom 366 received placebo (184 patients in TULIP-1 and 182 in TULIP-2) and 360 received anifrolumab 300 mg (180 patients in each trial). The mean patient age was 41·8 years (SD 11·9). 674 (93%) patients were female, 52 (7%) were male, and 479 (66%) were White; 283 (39%) were BICLA responders and 443 (61%) were BICLA non-responders. Compared with non-responders, BICLA responders reported greater mean improvements from baseline at week 52 in Patient Global Assessment, SF-36, Lupus Quality of Life, FACIT-F, and pain Numerical Rating Scale scores (all nominal p<0·0053). Compared with non-responders, a greater proportion of BICLA responders reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important difference across all SF-36 domains; eg, Physical Component Summary (165 [60%] of 277 for responders vs 63 [15%] of 416 for non-responders), Mental Component Summary (140 [51%] of 276 vs 59 [15%] of 416), and role physical (184 [70%] of 264 vs 76 [19%] of 398); Lupus Quality of Life domains; eg, physical health (151 [58%] of 262 vs 60 [15%] of 396), and intimate relationships (77 [41%] of 187 vs 33 [11%] of 286), and FACIT-F (155 [56%] of 276 vs 66 [15%] of 439). Similarly, a greater proportion of BICLA responders had scores equal to or greater than the normative values across all SF-36 domains and FACIT-F compared with BICLA non-responders at week 52. Patients who received anifrolumab reported greater numerical improvements in Patient Global Assessment, SF-36, Lupus Quality of Life, FACIT-F, and pain Numerical Rating Scale scores than those who received placebo. INTERPRETATION: BICLA responders reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in Patient Global Assessment, health-related quality of life, fatigue, and pain compared with BICLA non-responders. More patients with moderate to severe SLE who received anifrolumab were BICLA responders and had improved health-related quality of life, fatigue, and pain than those who received placebo. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Will rheumatologists ever pick up the arthroscope again?

Conditions prompting physicians and surgeons first adapting endoscopes to peer into joints were mainly the sort of synovial conditions that would concern today's rheumatologists. Rheumatologists were among the pre-World War II pioneers developing and documenting arthroscopy. The post-War father of modern arthroscopy, Watanabe, found rheumatologists among his early students, who took back the technique to their home countries, teaching orthopedists and rheumatologists alike. Rheumatologists described and analyzed the intra-articular features of their common diseases in the '60s and '70s. A groundswell of interest from academic rheumatologists in adapting arthroscopy grew considerably in the '90s with development of "needle scopes" that could be used in an office setting. Rheumatologists helped conduct the very trials the findings of which reduced demand for their arthroscopic services by questioning the efficacy of arthroscopic debridement in osteoarthritis (OA) and also developing biological compounds that greatly reduced the call for any resective intervention in inflammatory arthropathies. The arthroscope has proven an excellent tool for viewing and sampling synovium and continues to serve this purpose at several international research centers. While cartilage is now imaged mainly by magnetic resonance imaging, some OA features - such as a high prevalence of visible calcinosis - beg further arthroscopy-directed investigation. A new generation of "needle scopes" with far superior optics awaits future investigators, should they develop interest.

Neuropsychiatric Events in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Predictors of Occurrence and Resolution in a Longitudinal Analysis of an International Inception Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To determine predictors of change in neuropsychiatric (NP) event status in a large, prospective, international inception cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Upon enrollment and annually thereafter, NP events attributed to SLE and non-SLE causes and physician-determined resolution were documented. Factors potentially associated with the onset and resolution of NP events were determined by time-to-event analysis using a multistate modeling structure. RESULTS: NP events occurred in 955 (52.3%) of 1,827 patients, and 593 (31.0%) of 1,910 unique events were attributed to SLE. For SLE-associated NP (SLE NP) events, multivariate analysis revealed a positive association with male sex (P = 0.028), concurrent non-SLE NP events excluding headache (P < 0.001), active SLE (P = 0.012), and glucocorticoid use (P = 0.008). There was a negative association with Asian race (P = 0.002), postsecondary education (P = 0.001), and treatment with immunosuppressive drugs (P = 0.019) or antimalarial drugs (P = 0.056). For non-SLE NP events excluding headache, there was a positive association with concurrent SLE NP events (P < 0.001) and a negative association with African race (P = 0.012) and Asian race (P < 0.001). NP events attributed to SLE had a higher resolution rate than non-SLE NP events, with the exception of headache, which had comparable resolution rates. For SLE NP events, multivariate analysis revealed that resolution was more common in patients of Asian race (P = 0.006) and for central/focal NP events (P < 0.001). For non-SLE NP events, resolution was more common in patients of African race (P = 0.017) and less common in patients who were older at SLE diagnosis (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In a large and long-term study of the occurrence and resolution of NP events in SLE, we identified subgroups with better and worse prognosis. The course of NP events differs greatly depending on their nature and attribution.

A Multianalyte Assay Panel With Cell-Bound Complement Activation Products Predicts Transition of Probable Lupus to American College of Rheumatology-Classified Lupus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of biomarkers to predict the evolution of patients suspected of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), designated as probable SLE (pSLE), into classifiable SLE according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria. METHODS: Patients suspected of SLE were enrolled by lupus experts if they fulfilled three ACR criteria for SLE and were followed for approximately 1-3 years to evaluate transition into ACR-classifiable SLE. Individual cell-bound complement activation products (CB-CAPs), serum complement proteins (C3 and C4), and autoantibodies were measured by flow cytometry, turbidimetry, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, respectively. Blood levels of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were measured by mass spectrometry. A multianalyte assay panel (MAP), which includes CB-CAPs, was also evaluated. A MAP of greater than 0.8 reflected the optimal cutoff for transition to SLE. Time to fulfillment of ACR criteria was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients with pSLE enrolled, 74 had one or two follow-up visits 9-35 months after enrollment for a total of 128 follow-up visits. Overall, 28 patients with pSLE (30.4%) transitioned to ACR-classifiable SLE, including 16 (57%) in the first year and 12 (43%) afterwards. A MAP score of greater than 0.8 at enrollment predicted transition to classifiable SLE during the follow-up period (hazard ratio = 2.72; P = 0.012), whereas individual biomarkers or fulfillment of Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria did not. HCQ therapy was not associated with the prevention of transition to SLE. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of patients with pSLE transitioned within the study period. MAP of greater than 0.8 predicted disease evolution into classifiable SLE.

Arthroscopy in rheumatology: where have we been? Where might we go?

The aim of our manuscript is to illustrate the past, present and future role of rheumatologists performing arthroscopy. Doctors first began adapting endoscopes to inspect joints to assess synovial conditions that concern rheumatologists. Rheumatologists were among the pioneers developing arthroscopy. Students of the father of modern arthroscopy, Watanabe, included rheumatologists, who taught others once home. Rheumatologists assessed the intra-articular features of their common diseases in the 60s and 70s. Improvements in instrumentation and efforts by a few orthopaedists adapted a number of common joint surgical procedures for arthroscopy. Interest from rheumatologists in arthroscopy grew in the 90s with 'needle scopes' used in an office setting. Rheumatologists conducting the first prospective questioning arthroscopic debridement in OA and developing biological compounds reduced the call for arthroscopic interventions. The arthroscope has proven an excellent tool for viewing and sampling synovium, which continues to at several international centres. Some OA features-such as calcinosis-beg further arthroscopic investigation. A new generation of 'needle scopes' with far superior optics awaits future investigators.