Complement Activation in Patients With Probable Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Ability to Predict Progression to American College of Rheumatology-Classified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.
- 作者列表："Ramsey-Goldman R","Alexander RV","Massarotti EM","Wallace DJ","Narain S","Arriens C","Collins CE","Saxena A","Putterman C","Kalunian KC","O'Malley T","Dervieux T","Weinstein A
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the frequency of cell-bound complement activation products (CB-CAPs) as a marker of complement activation in patients with suspected systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the usefulness of this biomarker as a predictor of the evolution of probable SLE into SLE as classified by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. METHODS:Patients in whom SLE was suspected by lupus experts and who fulfilled 3 ACR classification criteria for SLE (probable SLE) were enrolled, along with patients with established SLE as classified by both the ACR and the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria, patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS), and patients with other rheumatic diseases. Individual CB-CAPs were measured by flow cytometry, and positivity rates were compared to those of commonly assessed biomarkers, including serum complement proteins (C3 and C4) and autoantibodies. The frequency of a positive multianalyte assay panel (MAP), which includes CB-CAPs, was also evaluated. Probable SLE cases were followed up prospectively. RESULTS:The 92 patients with probable SLE were diagnosed more recently than the 53 patients with established SLE, and their use of antirheumatic medications was lower. At the enrollment visit, more patients with probable SLE were positive for CB-CAPs (28%) or MAP (40%) than had low complement levels (9%) (P = 0.0001 for each). In probable SLE, MAP scores of >0.8 at enrollment predicted fulfillment of a fourth ACR criterion within 18 months (hazard ratio 3.11, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION:Complement activation occurs in some patients with probable SLE and can be detected with higher frequency by evaluating CB-CAPs and MAP than by assessing traditional serum complement protein levels. A MAP score above 0.8 predicts transition to classifiable SLE according to ACR criteria.
目的: 评估细胞结合补体激活产物 (CB-CAPs) 频率作为疑似系统性红斑狼疮 (SLE) 患者补体激活的标志物以及该生物标志物作为美国风湿病学会 (ACR) 标准分类的可能SLE演变为SLE的预测因子的有用性。 方法: 纳入狼疮专家怀疑SLE并符合SLE 3 项ACR分类标准 (可能SLE) 的患者，与ACR和系统性红斑狼疮国际合作诊所 (SLICC) 标准分类的已确诊SLE患者一起，原发性干燥综合征 (SS) 患者，和其他风湿性疾病患者。通过流式细胞术测量单个CB-CAPs，并将阳性率与常用评估的生物标志物进行比较，包括血清补体蛋白 (C3 和C4) 和自身抗体。还评估了包括CB-CAPs在内的阳性多分析物分析panel (MAP) 的频率。对可能的SLE病例进行前瞻性随访。 结果: 92 例可能的SLE患者比 53 例已确诊的SLE患者诊断近期，抗风湿药物的使用较低。在入组访视时，CB-CAPs (28%) 或MAP (40%) 阳性的可能SLE患者多于补体水平低 (9%) (P = 0.0001)。在可能的SLE中，入组时MAP评分> 0.8 预示着在 18 个月内达到第四个ACR标准 (风险比 3.11，P <0.01)。 结论: 补体激活在一些可能的SLE患者中发生，通过评估CB-CAPs和MAP可以比评估传统血清补体蛋白水平检测到更高的频率。MAP评分高于 0.8 根据ACR标准预测向可分类SLE的过渡。
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the cardiovascular risk of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) remains poorly studied. We aimed to investigate the association between primary SS and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of articles in Medline and the Cochrane Library and recent abstracts from US and European meetings, searching for reports of randomized controlled studies of cardiovascular morbidity and cardiovascular mortality in primary SS. The relative risk (RR) values for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with primary SS were collected and pooled in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model by using Review Manager (Cochrane collaboration). RESULTS:The literature search revealed 484 articles and abstracts of interest; 14 studies (67,124 patients with primary SS) were included in the meta-analysis. With primary SS versus control populations, the risk was significantly increased for coronary morbidity (RR 1.34 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.06-1.38]; P = 0.01), cerebrovascular morbidity (RR 1.46 [95% CI 1.43-1.49]; P < 0.00001), heart failure rate (odds ratio 2.54 [95% CI 1.30-4.97]; P < 0.007), and thromboembolic morbidity (RR 1.78 [95% CI 1.41-2.25]; P < 0.00001), with no statistically significant increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.48 [95% CI 0.77-2.85]; P = 0.24). CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis demonstrates that primary SS is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity, which suggests that these patients should be screened for cardiovascular comorbidities and considered for preventive interventions, in a multidisciplinary approach with cardiologists.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:We aimed to evaluate the comparative risk of hospitalized infection among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated abatacept versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). METHODS:Using claims data from Truven MarketScan database (2006-2015), we identified patients with RA ages ≥18 years with ≥2 RA diagnoses who initiated treatment with abatacept or a TNFi. The primary outcome was a composite end point of any hospitalized infection. Secondary outcomes included bacterial infection, herpes zoster, and infections affecting different organ systems. We performed 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching between the groups in order to control for baseline confounders. We estimated incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for hospitalized infection. RESULTS:We identified 11,248 PS-matched pairs of patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and TNFi with a median age of 56 years (83% were women). The IR per 1,000 person-years for any hospitalized infection was 37 among patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and 47 in those who initiated treatment with TNFi. The HR for the risk of any hospitalized infection associated with abatacept versus TNFi was 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) and remained lower when compared to infliximab (HR 0.63 [95% CI 0.47-0.85]), while no significant difference was seen when compared to adalimumab and etanercept. The risk of secondary outcomes was lower for abatacept for pulmonary infections, and similar to TNFi for the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSION:In this large cohort of patients with RA who initiated treatment with abatacept or TNFi as a first- or second-line biologic agent, we found a lower risk of hospitalized infection after initiating abatacept versus TNFi, which was driven mostly by infliximab.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Reducing pain is one of the main health priorities for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA); however, some studies indicate that pain is not routinely assessed in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) beliefs about the role of pain and the prioritization of its assessment in children and young people with JIA. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs who manage children and young people with JIA in the UK (including consultant and trainee pediatric rheumatologists, nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists). Data were analyzed qualitatively following a framework analysis approach. RESULTS:Twenty-one HCPs participated. Analyses of the data identified 6 themes, including lack of training and low confidence in pain assessment, reluctance to engage in pain discussions, low prioritization of pain assessment, specific beliefs about the nature of pain in JIA, treatment of pain in JIA, and undervaluing pain reports. Assessment of pain symptoms was regarded as a low priority and some HCPs actively avoided conversations about pain. CONCLUSION:These findings indicate that the assessment of pain in children and young people with JIA may be limited by knowledge, skills, and attitudinal factors. HCPs' accounts of their beliefs about pain in JIA and their low prioritization of pain in clinical practice suggest that a shift in perceptions about pain management may be helpful for professionals managing children and young people with this condition.