No abstract

No abstract

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have a longer life expectancy. The occurrence of irreversible damage has become a major concern. The present study assessed damage progression in patients with SLE over a 2-year period and identified baseline features associated with damage accrual. Two hundred and twenty-one patients that fulfilled criteria for SLE and had a follow-up longer than 6 months were enrolled. Demographic, clinical, and immunological data were collected at baseline. Accumulated organ damage was scored using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology damage index (SDI). Patients were prospectively followed and SDI assessment repeated at 2 years. At baseline 72 patients (33%) presented some irreversible damage, and after 2 years 53 had accrued new damage. The mean SDI for the whole cohort increased from 0.582 to 0.980. Damage progression was higher in ocular, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal systems. Older age [OR = 1.045; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.021-1.069; P = 0.03], presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (OR = 3.047; 95% CI 1.169-7.941; P = 0.02), steroid use (OR = 6.401; 95% CI 1.601-25.210; P = 0.008), azathioprine use (OR = 3.501; CI 1.224-10.012; P = 0.01), and hypertension (OR = 3.825; 95% CI 1.490-9.820; P = 0.005) were predictors of damage progression in multivariate analysis. Overall SDI increased over time, with some systems being affected more frequently. Demographic and clinical characteristics, co-morbidity, and treatment options may contribute to irreversible damage. It is necessary to determine whether the control of modifiable factors (e.g., hypertension and judicious use of medications) might prevent damage progression in SLE patients.

ObjectivesTo compare definitions of high disease activity of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) in selecting patients for treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs).MethodsPatients from Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register (Reuma.pt) with a clinical diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were included. Four subgroups (cross-tabulation between ASDAS (≥2.1) and BASDAI (≥4) definitions of high disease activity) were compared regarding baseline characteristics and response to bDMARDs at 3 and 6 months estimated in multivariable regression models.ResultsOf the 594 patients included, the majority (82%) had both BASDAI≥4 and ASDAS ≥2.1. The frequency of ASDAS ≥2.1, if BASDAI<4 was much larger than the opposite (ie, ASDAS <2.1, if BASDAI≥4): 62% vs 0.8%. Compared to patients fulfilling both definitions, those with ASDAS ≥2.1 only were more likely to be male (77% vs 51%), human leucocyte antigen B27 positive (79% vs 65%) and have a higher C reactive protein (2.9 (SD 3.5) vs 2.1 (2.9)). Among bDMARD-treated patients (n=359), responses across subgroups were globally overlapping, except for the most ‘stringent’ outcomes. Patients captured only by ASDAS responded better compared to patients fulfilling both definitions (eg, ASDAS inactive disease at 3 months: 61% vs 25% and at 6 months: 42% vs 25%).ConclusionThe ASDAS definition of high disease activity is more inclusive than the BASDAI definition in selecting patients with axSpA for bDMARD treatment. The additionally ‘captured’ patients respond better and have higher likelihood of predictors thereof. These results support using ASDAS≥2.1 as a criterion for treatment decisions.

Background: To investigate whether the reason to discontinue the first TNF inhibitor (TNFi) affects the response to the second TNFi in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods: Patients with axSpA from the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register (ReumaPt), who discontinued their first TNFi and started the second TNFi between June 2008 and May 2018, were included. Response was assessed by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) clinically important improvement (ASDAS-CII), major important improvement (ASDAS-MI), low disease activity (ASDAS-LDA), and inactive disease (ASDAS-ID). The reason for discontinuation of the first TNFi was defined, according to ASDAS-CII as primary failure (no response ≤ 6 months), secondary failure (response ≤ 6 months but lost thereafter), adverse events, and others. The association between the reason for discontinuation of the first TNFi and response to the second TNFi over time was assessed in multivariable generalized equation (GEE) models. Results: In total, 193 patients were included. The reason for discontinuation of the first TNFi did not influence the response to the second TNFi, according to the ASDAS-CII. However, a difference was found with more stringent outcomes, e.g., there was a higher likelihood to achieve ASDAS-ID with the second TNFi for patients discontinuing the first TNFi due to secondary failure (OR 7.3 [95%CI 1.9; 27.7]), adverse events (OR 9.1 [2.5; 33.3]), or other reasons (OR 7.7 [1.6; 37.9]) compared to primary failure. Conclusion: Patients with axSpA with secondary failure to their first TNFi, compared to those with primary failure, have a better response to the second TNFi according to stringent outcomes.