ObjectivesTo evaluate risk factors associated with unfavourable outcomes: emergency care, hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation and death in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic disease (IMRD) and COVID-19.MethodsAnalysis of the first 8 weeks of observational multicentre prospective cohort study (ReumaCoV Brasil register). Patients with IMRD and COVID-19 according to the Ministry of Health criteria were classified as eligible for the study.Results334 participants were enrolled, a majority of them women, with a median age of 45 years; systemic lupus erythematosus (32.9%) was the most frequent IMRD. Emergency care was required in 160 patients, 33.0% were hospitalised, 15.0% were admitted to the ICU and 10.5% underwent mechanical ventilation; 28 patients (8.4%) died. In the multivariate adjustment model for emergency care, diabetes (prevalence ratio, PR 1.38; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.73; p=0.004), kidney disease (PR 1.36; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.77; p=0.020), oral glucocorticoids (GC) (PR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.85; p<0.001) and pulse therapy with methylprednisolone (PR 1.38; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.67; p=0.001) remained significant; for hospitalisation, age >50 years (PR 1.89; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.85; p=0.002), no use of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (PR 2.51;95% CI 1.16 to 5.45; p=0.004) and methylprednisolone pulse therapy (PR 2.50; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.92; p<0.001); for ICU admission, oral GC (PR 2.24; 95% CI 1.36 to 3.71; p<0.001) and pulse therapy with methylprednisolone (PR 1.65; 95% CI 1.00 to 2.68; p<0.043); the two variables associated with death were pulse therapy with methylprednisolone or cyclophosphamide (PR 2.86; 95% CI 1.59 to 5.14; p<0.018).ConclusionsAge >50 years and immunosuppression with GC and cyclophosphamide were associated with unfavourable outcomes of COVID-19. Treatment with TNFi may have been protective, perhaps leading to the COVID-19 inflammatory process.

The objective of this document is to provide a comprehensive update of the recommendations of Brazilian Society of Rheumatology on drug treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), based on a systematic literature review and on the opinion of a panel of rheumatologists. Four general principles and eleven recommendations were approved. General principles: RA treatment should (1) preferably consist of a multidisciplinary approach coordinated by a rheumatologist, (2) include counseling on lifestyle habits, strict control of comorbidities, and updates of the vaccination record, (3) be based on decisions shared by the patient and the physician after clarification about the disease and the available therapeutic options; (4) the goal is sustained clinical remission or, when this is not feasible, low disease activity. Recommendations: (1) the first line of treatment should be a csDMARD, started as soon as the diagnosis of RA is established; (2) methotrexate (MTX) is the first-choice csDMARD; (3) the combination of two or more csDMARDs, including MTX, may be used as the first line of treatment; (4) after failure of first-line therapy with MTX, the therapeutic strategies include combining MTX with another csDMARD (leflunomide), with two csDMARDs (hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine), or switching MTX for another csDMARD (leflunomide or sulfasalazine) alone; (5) after failure of two schemes with csDMARDs, a bDMARD may be preferably used or, alternatively a tsDMARD, preferably combined, in both cases, with a csDMARD; (6) the different bDMARDs in combination with MTX have similar efficacy, and therefore, the therapeutic choice should take into account the peculiarities of each drug in terms of safety and cost; (7) the combination of a bDMARD and MTX is preferred over the use of a bDMARD alone; (8) in case of failure of an initial treatment scheme with a bDMARD, a scheme with another bDMARD can be used; in cases of failure with a TNFi, a second bDMARD of the same class or with another mechanism of action is effective and safe; (9) tofacitinib can be used to treat RA after failure of bDMARD; (10) corticosteroids, preferably at low doses for the shortest possible time, should be considered during periods of disease activity, and the risk-benefit ratio should also be considered; (11) reducing or spacing out bDMARD doses is possible in patients in sustained remission.

Background: There are few data on the epidemiology, clinical manifestations and management of RA in Brazil, even with the recognition of the high direct, indirect and societal costs of this disease. Herein, we report the formation of the REAL -Rheumatoid Arthritis in Real Life, the first nationally representative multicenter prospective observational study in Brazil. Methods: The REAL study was designed to include a total of 1300 evaluable patients from 13 tertiary care public health centers specialized in RA management and representative of 5 regions of Brazil. Each center was expected to enroll~100 consecutively seen patients and follow them prospectively in a systematic protocol-driven fashion with scheduled visits at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Core clinical, laboratory and patient-reported outcomes measures were required to be collected at each visit. Results: A total of 1115 patients (89.4% female, mean age of 56.7 years and median disease duration of 12.7 years) were enrolled from 11 participating centers. Almost 80% of patients were of middle-low or low socioeconomic classes. The median educational time was 8 years, with 3.23% being below literacy level. The interval between symptoms and diagnosis varied from 1 to 457 months (median 12 months). Almost half of the patients were on glucocorticoids, 96.5% on DMARDs, with 35.7% on biologics. Median HAQ-DI was 0.875, ranging from 0 to 3. Median DAS28-ESR was 3.5, with 58.7% of patients presenting moderate or high disease activity. Conclusions:The first large cohort of Brazilian patients with RA in a real-life setting shows several striking differences from previously published cohorts from other countries. The long delay for diagnosis and start of DMARDs may partly explain the high frequency of erosive disease. An elevated percentage of patients on moderate or high disease activity was seen, despite of the high frequency of corticosteroid and biologics utilization. Data from this cohort may enable public health managers of developing countries better allocate the limited resources available for the care of RA patients.

Experts have called attention to the possible negative impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–related cytokine storm syndrome on the progression of leprosy-related disabilities. We assessed the frequency of reactional states in patients co-infected with Mycobacterium leprae and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus (CoV) 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We consecutively included patients during the first peak of the COVID-19 epidemic in Brazil and analyzed the expressions of genes encoding interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12A, IL-12B, and tumor necrosis factor-α in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. We included 64 leprosy patients and 50 controls. Twelve of the leprosy patients and 14 of the controls had been diagnosed with COVID-19. Co-infection was associated with increased IL-6 (P = 0.043) and IL-12B (P = 0.017) expression. The median disability grades were higher for leprosy/COVID-19 patients; however, the difference was not significant (P = 0.194). Patients co-infected with M. leprae and SARS-CoV-2 may experience a higher-grade proinflammatory state.

In patients with severe forms of COVID-19, thromboelastometry has been reported to display a hypercoagulant pattern. However, an algorithm to differentiate severe COVID-19 patients from nonsevere patients and healthy controls based on thromboelastometry parameters has not been developed. Forty-one patients over 18 years of age with positive qRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 were classified according to the severity of the disease: nonsevere (NS, n = 20) or severe (S, n = 21). A healthy control (HC, n = 9) group was also examined. Blood samples from all participants were tested by extrinsic (EXTEM), intrinsic (INTEM), non-activated (NATEM) and functional assessment of fibrinogen (FIBTEM) assays of thromboelastometry. The thrombodynamic potential index (TPI) was also calculated. Severe COVID-19 patients exhibited a thromboelastometry profile with clear hypercoagulability, which was significantly different from the NS and HC groups. Nonsevere COVID-19 cases showed a trend to thrombotic pole. The NATEM test suggested that nonsevere and severe COVID-19 patients presented endogenous coagulation activation (reduced clotting time and clot formation time). TPI data were significantly different between the NS and S groups. The maximum clot firmness profile obtained by FIBTEM showed moderate/elevated accuracy to differentiate severe patients from NS and HC. A decision tree algorithm based on the FIBTEM-MCF profile was proposed to differentiate S from HC and NS. Thromboelastometric parameters are a useful tool to differentiate the coagulation profile of nonsevere and severe COVID-19 patients for therapeutic intervention purposes.

Background Discordance between patient's global assessment (PtGA) and physician's global assessment (PhGA) has been described in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Understanding the reasons for this discrepancy is important in the context of treat-to-target treatment strategy. Objective To assess the determinants of PtGA and PhGA and factors associated with discordance between them. Methods The REAL study included RA patients from Brazilian public health centers. Clinical, laboratory and outcomes measures were collected. PtGA and the PhGA were rated on a visual analog scale and analyzed. Three groups were defined: no discordance (difference between PtGA and PhGA within 3 cm), positive discordance (PtGA exceeding PhGA by >3 cm), and

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with high frequency of comorbidities and increased risk of polypharmacy. Although there is a great potential for complications, there is a gap in literature on polypharmacy in patients with rheumatic arthritis. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy in a population in a real-life setting. Methods: A cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted in Brazil. Patients underwent clinical evaluation and medical records analysis. Polypharmacy was considered as a dependent variable. To test independent variables, we used Poisson regression. Results: We evaluated 792 patients (89% female, median age 56.6 years). Median duration of disease was 12.7 years, 78.73% had a positive rheumatoid factor. The median of disease activity score-28 was 3.5 (disease with mild activity), median of the clinical disease activity index score was 9, and median of health assessment questionnaire-disability index was 0.875; 47% used corticosteroids, 9.1% used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 90.9% used synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, 35.7% used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). In total, 537 (67.9%) patients used 5 or more drugs. Polypharmacy showed a relationship with a number of comorbidities and use of specific drugs (corticosteroids, methotrexate, and biological DMARDs). Conclusion: We found a high prevalence of polypharmacy (67.9%) in RA. Solutions to management this problem should be stimulated.

The yellow fever vaccine is a live attenuated virus vaccine that is considered one of the most efficient vaccines produced to date. The original 17D strain generated the substrains 17D-204 and 17DD, which are used for the current production of vaccines against yellow fever. The 17D-204 and 17DD substrains present subtle differences in their nucleotide compositions, which can potentially lead to variations in immunogenicity and reactogenicity. We will address the main changes in the immune responses induced by the 17D-204 and 17DD yellow fever vaccines and report similarities and differences between these vaccines in cellular and humoral immunity . This is a relevant issue in view of the re-emergence of yellow fever in Uganda in 2016 and in Brazil in the beginning of 2017. Areas covered: This article will be divided into 8 sections that will analyze the innate immune response, adaptive immune response, humoral response, production of cytokines, immunity in children, immunity in the elderly, gene expression and adverse reactions. Expert commentary: The 17D-204 and 17DD yellow fever vaccines present similar immunogenicity, with strong activation of the cellular and humoral immune responses. Additionally, both vaccines have similar adverse effects, which are mostly mild and thus are considered safe.