Associated factors to serious infections in a large cohort of juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus from Lupus Registry (RELESSER).

Objective: To assess the incidence of serious infection (SI) and associated factors in a large juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (jSLE) retrospective cohort. Methods: All patients in the Spanish Rheumatology Society Lupus Registry (RELESSER) who meet =4 ACR-97 SLE criteria and disease onset <18 years old (jSLE), were retrospectively investigated for SI (defined as either the need for hospitalization with antibacterial therapy for a potentially fatal infection or death caused by the infection). Standardized SI rate was calculated per 100 patient years. Patients with and without SI were compared. Bivariate and multivariate logistic and Cox regression models were built to calculate associated factors to SI and relative risks. Results: A total of 353 jSLE patients were included: 88.7% female, 14.3 years (± 2.9) of age at diagnosis, 16.0 years (± 9.3) of disease duration and 31.5 years (±10.5) at end of follow-up. A total of 104 (29.5%) patients suffered 205 SI (1, 55.8%; 2-5, 38.4%; and =6, 5.8%). Incidence rate was 3.7 (95%CI: 3.2–4.2) SI per 100 patient years. Respiratory location and bacterial infections were the most frequent. Higher number of SLE classification criteria, SLICC/ACR DI score and immunosuppressants use were associated to the presence of SI. Associated factors to shorter time to first infection were higher number of SLE criteria, splenectomy and immunosuppressants use. Conclusions: The risk of SI in jSLE patients is significant and higher than aSLE. It is associated to higher number of SLE criteria, damage accrual, some immunosuppressants and splenectomy

Differences in clinical manifestations and increased severity of systemic lupus erythematosus between two groups of Hispanics: European Caucasians versus Latin American mestizos (data from the RELESSER registry).

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is regarded as a prototype autoimmune disease because it can serve as a means for studying differences between ethnic minorities and sex. Traditionally, all Hispanics have been bracketed within the same ethnic group, but there are differences between Hispanics from Spain and those from Latin America, not to mention other Spanish-speaking populations. This study aimed to determine the demographic and clinical characteristics, severity, activity, damage, mortality and co-morbidity of SLE in Hispanics belonging to the two ethnic groups resident in Spain, and to identify any differences. This was an observational, multi-centre, retrospective study. The demographic and clinical variables of patients with SLE from 45 rheumatology units were collected. The study was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Hispanic patients from the registry were divided into two groups: Spaniards or European Caucasians (EC) and Latin American mestizos (LAM). Comparative univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were carried out. A total of 3490 SLE patients were included, 90% of whom were female; 3305 (92%) EC and 185 (5%) LAM. LAM patients experienced their first lupus symptoms four years earlier than EC patients and were diagnosed and included in the registry younger, and their SLE was of a shorter duration. The time in months from the first SLE symptoms to diagnosis was longer in EC patients, as were the follow-up periods. LAM patients exhibited higher prevalence rates of myositis, haemolytic anaemia and nephritis, but there were no differences in histological type or serositis. Anti-Sm, anti-Ro and anti-RNP antibodies were more frequently found in LAM patients. LAM patients also had higher levels of disease activity, severity and hospital admissions. However, there were no differences in damage index, mortality or co-morbidity index. In the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for confounders, in several models the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for a Katz severity index >3 in LAM patients was 1.45 (1.038-2.026; p = 0.02). This difference did not extend to activity levels (i.e. SLEDAI >3; 0.98 (0.30-1.66)). SLE in Hispanic EC patients showed clinical differences compared to Hispanic LAM patients. The latter more frequently suffered nephritis and higher severity indices. This study shows that where lupus is concerned, not all Hispanics are equal

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health