This study aims to compare the severity and outcomes of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) between Hispanics and Caucasians living in the same geographical area. All patients diagnosed with AAV at two academic institutions in Chicago from January 2006 to December 2012 were retrospectively and prospectively identified. Disease activity was measured with the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), and disease damage was measured with the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI). Student's t test and chi-square tests were employed; p ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Seventy patients with AAV were identified; 15 patients were excluded. Fifty-five patients were included in the study: 23 Hispanics and 32 Caucasians, 35 patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener's), 12 with microscopic polyangiitis, 7 with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and 1 with renal-limited vasculitis. Compared to Caucasians, Hispanics had a higher BVAS at presentation (16.3 ± 7.6 versus 10.7 ± 7.5, p = 0.006), a higher VDI at presentation (2.90 ± 1.50 versus 2.06 ± 1.30, p = 0.030), and a cumulative VDI (3.90 ± 1.70 versus 2.50 ± 1.90, p = 0.010). Renal involvement was more common among Hispanics (85 % of Hispanics versus 48 % of Caucasians, p = 0.01). Seventy percent of Hispanics had acute renal failure (mean creatinine = 3.37 ± 4.4 mg/dl) of whom seven (50 %) required dialysis, versus 25 % of Caucasians (mean creatinine = 1.78 ± 1.57 mg/dl, p = 0.03) and only two requiring dialysis. Compared to Caucasians, Hispanics with AAV present with more severe disease and higher damage indices. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings and delineate the respective roles of environment and genetics in the pathogenesis of the disease.

Narender Annapureddy and Krishna Nalleballe contributed equally to this work. Key Points • Continuation of immunosuppressive medications during COVID-19 seems to be safe as suggested by the ACRTF.

No abstract

The aim of this paper is to review and discuss the background, common manifestations, differential diagnosis, and current treatment practices of reactive arthritis. The focus will be on the choice of therapy in patients with poor prognostic factors. A PubMed search was performed in March 2020 on reactive arthritis and revealed 137 articles. Fourteen case reports and four large-scale studies that are pertinent for discussion in terms of treatment of reactive arthritis over the past five years are reported along with poor prognostic markers. The first choice of therapy regardless of the number of poor prognostic markers is non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The second choice of therapy appeared to be glucocorticoids in the oral as well as intra-articular forms. No correlation was detected between the need for systemic steroids and the number of poor prognostic factors present. The third choice of therapy appears to be disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (such as sulfasalazine) and their increasing use can be demonstrated over time. Novel therapies such as adalimumab have also been shown to be used and this shows a strong correlation with an increased number of poor prognostic factors. Reporting of these case reports and review of literature contribute to knowing more about reactive arthritis and help keep us up to date with newer therapies available when patients do not respond to conventional therapy. It was notable that the increased number of poor prognostic factors and non-responders have shown increased use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFI) such as adalimumab.