Association of Race and Ethnicity With COVID‐19 Outcomes in Rheumatic Disease: Data From the COVID‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Physician Registry

OBJECTIVE: Racial/ethnic minorities experience more severe outcomes of COVID-19 in the general United States (US) population. The aim of this study was to examine the association between race/ethnicity and COVID-19 hospitalization, ventilation status, and mortality in people with rheumatic disease. METHODS: US patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 entered into the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry March 24 - August 26, 2020 were included. Race/ethnicity was defined as white, Black, Latinx, Asian and other/mixed race. Outcomes included hospitalization, requirement for ventilatory support, and death. Multivariable regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals controlling for age, sex, smoking, rheumatic disease diagnosis, comorbidities, medications taken prior to infection, and rheumatic disease activity. RESULTS: A total of 1,324 patients were included, of whom 36% were hospitalized and 6% died; 26% of hospitalized patients required mechanical ventilation. In multivariable models, Black (OR=2.74, 95% CI 1.90, 3.95), Latinx (OR=1.71, 95% CI 1.18, 2.49), and Asian (OR=2.69, 95% CI 1.16, 6.24) patients had higher odds of being hospitalized compared to white patients. Latinx patients also had three-fold increased odds of requiring ventilatory support (OR=3.25, 95% CI 1.75, 6.05). No differences in mortality based on race/ethnicity were found, though power may have been limited to detect associations. CONCLUSION: Similar to findings in the general US population, racial/ethnic minorities with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 had increased odds of hospitalization and ventilatory support. These results illustrate significant health disparities related to COVID-19 in people with rheumatic diseases. The rheumatology community should proactively address the needs of patients currently experiencing inequitable health outcomes during the pandemic

A Risk Score for Predicting Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) develops as a result of environmental influences on the genetically susceptible. Siblings of people with MS have an increased risk of both MS and demonstrating asymptomatic changes in keeping with MS. We set out to develop an MS risk score integrating both genetic and environmental risk factors. We used this score to identify siblings at extremes of MS risk and attempted to validate the score using brain MRI.78 probands with MS, 121 of their unaffected siblings and 103 healthy controls were studied. Personal history was taken, and serological and genetic analysis using the illumina immunochip was performed. Odds ratios for MS associated with each risk factor were derived from existing literature, and the log values of the odds ratios from each of the risk factors were combined in an additive model to provide an overall score. Scores were initially calculated using log odds ratio from the HLA-DRB1*1501 allele only, secondly using data from all MS-associated SNPs identified in the 2011 GWAS. Subjects with extreme risk scores underwent validation studies. MRI was performed on selected individuals.There was a significant difference in the both risk scores between people with MS, their unaffected siblings and healthy controls (p<0.0005). Unaffected siblings had a risk score intermediate to people with MS and controls (p<0.0005). The best performing risk score generated an AUC of 0.82 (95%CI 0.75–0.88).The risk score demonstrates an AUC on the threshold for clinical utility. Our score enables the identification of a high-risk sibling group to inform pre-symptomatic longitudinal studies

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

Specific gut microbial, biological, and psychiatric profiling related to binge eating disorders: A cross-sectional study in obese patients

Background & aimsBinge eating disorder (BED) is a frequent eating disorder associated with obesity and co-morbidities including psychiatric pathologies, which represent a big health burden on the society.The biological processes related to BED remain unknown. Based on psychological testing, anthropometry, clinical biology, gut microbiota analysis and metabolomic assessment, we aimed to examine the complex biological and psychiatric profile of obese patients with and without BED.MethodsPsychological and biological characteristics (anthropometry, plasma biology, gut microbiota, blood pressure) of 101 obese subjects from the Food4Gut cohort were analysed to decipher the differences between BED and Non BED patients, classified based on the Questionnaire for Eating Disorder Diagnosis (Q-EDD). Microbial 16S rDNA sequencing and plasma non-targeted metabolomics (liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry) were performed in a subcohort of 91 and 39 patients respectively.ResultsBED subjects exhibited an impaired affect balance, deficits in inhibition and self-regulation together with marked alterations of eating behaviour (increased emotional and external eating). BED subjects displayed a lower blood pressure and hip circumference. A decrease in Akkermansia and Intestimonas as well as an increase in Bifidobacterium and Anaerostipes characterized BED subjects. Interestingly, metabolomics analysis revealed that BED subjects displayed a higher level of one food contaminants, Bisphenol A bis(2,3-dihydroxypropyl) ether (BADGE.2H(2)O) and a food derived-metabolite the Isovalerylcarnitine.ConclusionsNon-targeted omics approaches allow to select specific microbial genera and two plasma metabolites that characterize BED obese patients. Further studies are needed to confirm their potential role as drivers or biomarkers of binge eating disorder

Development of a Prediction Model for COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases: Results From the Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry

OBJECTIVE: Some patients with rheumatic diseases might be at higher risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to develop a prediction model for COVID-19 ARDS in this population and to create a simple risk score calculator for use in clinical settings. METHODS: Data were derived from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry from March 24, 2020, to May 12, 2021. Seven machine learning classifiers were trained on ARDS outcomes using 83 variables obtained at COVID-19 diagnosis. Predictive performance was assessed in a US test set and was validated in patients from four countries with independent registries using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A simple risk score calculator was developed using a regression model incorporating the most influential predictors from the best performing classifier. RESULTS: The study included 8633 patients from 74 countries, of whom 523 (6%) had ARDS. Gradient boosting had the highest mean AUC (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.88) and was considered the top performing classifier. Ten predictors were identified as key risk factors and were included in a regression model. The regression model that predicted ARDS with 71% (95% CI: 61%-83%) sensitivity in the test set, and with sensitivities ranging from 61% to 80% in countries with independent registries, was used to develop the risk score calculator. CONCLUSION: We were able to predict ARDS with good sensitivity using information readily available at COVID-19 diagnosis. The proposed risk score calculator has the potential to guide risk stratification for treatments, such as monoclonal antibodies, that have potential to reduce COVID-19 disease progression

Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica might be at a high risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes due to the treatments used, the potential organ damage cause by primary systemic vasculitis, and the demographic factors associated with these conditions. We therefore aimed to investigate factors associated with COVID-19 outcomes in patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and April 12, 2021, who had a history of primary systemic vasculitis (antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody [ANCA]-associated vasculitis, giant cell arteritis, Behçet's syndrome, or other vasculitis) or polymyalgia rheumatica, and were reported to the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry were included. To assess COVID-19 outcomes in patients, we used an ordinal COVID-19 severity scale, defined as: (1) no hospitalisation; (2) hospitalisation without supplemental oxygen; (3) hospitalisation with any supplemental oxygen or ventilation; or (4) death. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs), adjusting for age, sex, time period, number of comorbidities, smoking status, obesity, glucocorticoid use, disease activity, region, and medication category. Analyses were also stratified by type of rheumatic disease. FINDINGS: Of 1202 eligible patients identified in the registry, 733 (61·0%) were women and 469 (39·0%) were men, and their mean age was 63·8 years (SD 17·1). A total of 374 (31·1%) patients had polymyalgia rheumatica, 353 (29·4%) had ANCA-associated vasculitis, 183 (15·2%) had giant cell arteritis, 112 (9·3%) had Behçet's syndrome, and 180 (15·0%) had other vasculitis. Of 1020 (84·9%) patients with outcome data, 512 (50·2%) were not hospitalised, 114 (11·2%) were hospitalised and did not receive supplemental oxygen, 239 (23·4%) were hospitalised and received ventilation or supplemental oxygen, and 155 (15·2%) died. A higher odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes were observed in patients who were older (per each additional decade of life OR 1·44 [95% CI 1·31–1·57]), were male compared with female (1·38 [1·05–1·80]), had more comorbidities (per each additional comorbidity 1·39 [1·23–1·58]), were taking 10 mg/day or more of prednisolone compared with none (2·14 [1·50–3·04]), or had moderate, or high or severe disease activity compared with those who had disease remission or low disease activity (2·12 [1·49–3·02]). Risk factors varied among different disease subtypes. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with primary systemic vasculitis and polymyalgia rheumatica, severe COVID-19 outcomes were associated with variable and largely unmodifiable risk factors, such as age, sex, and number of comorbidities, as well as treatments, including high-dose glucocorticoids. Our results could be used to inform mitigation strategies for patients with these diseases. FUNDING: American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology

Associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs with COVID-19 severity in rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders. RESULTS: Of 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: People with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people

Activity-Based Funding of Hospitals and Its Impact on Mortality, Readmission, Discharge Destination, Severity of Illness, and Volume of Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Activity-based funding (ABF) of hospitals is a policy intervention intended to re-shape incentives across health systems through the use of diagnosis-related groups. Many countries are adopting or actively promoting ABF. We assessed the effect of ABF on key measures potentially affecting patients and health care systems: mortality (acute and post-acute care); readmission rates; discharge rate to post-acute care following hospitalization; severity of illness; volume of care. &nbsp; &nbsp; Methods: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide evidence produced since 1980. We included all studies reporting original quantitative data comparing the impact of ABF versus alternative funding systems in acute care settings, regardless of language. We searched 9 electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Business Source), hand-searched reference lists, and consulted with experts. Paired reviewers independently screened for eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed study credibility according to a pre-defined scoring system, resolving conflicts by discussion or adjudication. &nbsp; &nbsp; Results: Of 16,565 unique citations, 50 US studies and 15 studies from 9 other countries proved eligible (i.e. Australia, Austria, England, Germany, Israel, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland). We found consistent and robust differences between ABF and no-ABF in discharge to post-acute care, showing a 24% increase with ABF (pooled relative risk = 1.24, 95% CI 1.18–1.31). Results also suggested a possible increase in readmission with ABF, and an apparent increase in severity of illness, perhaps reflecting differences in diagnostic coding. Although we found no consistent, systematic differences in mortality rates and volume of care, results varied widely across studies, some suggesting appreciable benefits from ABF, and others suggesting deleterious consequences. &nbsp; &nbsp; Conclusions: Transitioning to ABF is associated with important policy- and clinically-relevant changes. Evidence suggests substantial increases in admissions to post-acute care following hospitalization, with implications for system capacity and equitable access to care. High variability in results of other outcomes leaves the impact in particular settings uncertain, and may not allow a jurisdiction to predict if ABF would be harmless. Decision-makers considering ABF should plan for likely increases in post-acute care admissions, and be aware of the large uncertainty around impacts on other critical outcomes

A narrative review of the potential pharmacological influence and safety of ibuprofen on coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), ACE2, and the immune system: a dichotomy of expectation and reality

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic is currently the most acute healthcare challenge in the world. Despite growing knowledge of the nature of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), treatment options are still poorly defined. The safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), specifically ibuprofen, has been openly questioned without any supporting evidence or clarity over dose, duration, or temporality of administration. This has been further conflicted by the initiation of studies to assess the efficacy of ibuprofen in improving outcomes in severe COVID-19 patients. To clarify the scientific reality, a literature search was conducted alongside considerations of the pharmacological properties of ibuprofen in order to construct this narrative review. The literature suggests that double-blind, placebo-controlled study results must be reported and carefully analysed for safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19 before any recommendations can be made regarding the use of ibuprofen in such patients. Limited studies have suggested: (i) no direct interactions between ibuprofen and SARS-CoV-2 and (ii) there is no evidence to suggest ibuprofen affects the regulation of angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2 (ACE2), the receptor for COVID-19, in human studies. Furthermore, in vitro studies suggest ibuprofen may facilitate cleavage of ACE2 from the membrane, preventing membrane-dependent viral entry into the cell, the clinical significance of which is uncertain. Additionally, in vitro evidence suggests that inhibition of the transcription factor nuclear factor-κB (NF-kB) by ibuprofen may have a role in reducing excess inflammation or cytokine release in COVID-19 patients. Finally, there is no evidence that ibuprofen will aggravate or increase the chance of infection of COVID-19