What is the best referral strategy for axial spondyloarthritis? A prospective multicenter study in patients with suspicious chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of referral strategies for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in patients with suspicious chronic inflammatory low back pain (LBP), to estimate the value of inflammatory back pain (IBP) for referral, and to identify the predictive factors of the final diagnosis of axSpA in Middle Eastern Arab countries.

METHODS

The study was multicentric, prospective, and conducted in LBP first-line clinics (rheumatology, internal, family medicine, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, and neurology). Consecutive adult patients aged under 45years were included in case of LBP suspicious of inflammatory nature according to the first-line physician. The rheumatologist's final diagnosis was the gold standard. The diagnostic properties of ten referral strategies (Brandt I, II, III, Hermann, RADAR, RADAR 2/3, MASTER, Braun, CAFASPA, and ASAS) and of IBP were calculated. A multivariable logistic regression identified the clinical predictive factors of axSpA.

RESULTS

In 515 referred patients, axSpA was confirmed in 48%, refuted in 43%, and diagnosis remained inconclusive in 9%. The optimal referral strategy was the MASTER (PLR 3.3), which comprises IBP, good response to NSAIDs, positive HLA-B27, and SpA family history. Considering strategies without HLA-B27, the RADAR 2/3 had a PLR of 2.9 (IBP, good response to NSAIDs, any extra-musculoskeletal manifestation). The predictive factors for axSpA were MRI sacroiliitis, positive HLA-B27, high CRP, psoriasis, IBP, and longer symptom duration. Of all patients, 35% were self-referred, 16% were referred by primary care physicians, and 15% by neuro/orthopedic surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Optimizing physicians' awareness of these clinical features may enhance referral in axSpA.

Adding colchicine to tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: An open-label randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Colchicine acts upstream in the cytokines cascade by inhibiting the nod-like receptor protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome while interleukin 6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists, such as tocilizumab, block the end result of the cytokines cascade. Hence, adding colchicine to tocilizumab with the aim of blocking the early and end products of the cytokines cascade, might reduce the risk of developing cytokine storm.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We aim to conduct an open-label randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding colchicine to tocilizumab among patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia to reduce the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. We will include patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who received tocilizumab according to our local guidelines. Enrolled patients will be then randomized in 1:1 to colchicine versus no colchicine. Patients will be followed up for 30 days. The primary outcome is the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation and will be determined using Cox proportional hazard model.

DISCUSSION

Given colchicine's ease of use, low cost, good safety profile, and having different anti-inflammatory mechanism of action than other IL-6 blockade, colchicine might serve as a potential anti-inflammatory agent among patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. This study will provide valuable insights on the use of colchicine in severe COVID-19 when added to IL-6 antagonists.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Medical Research Center and Institutional Review Board at Hamad Medical Corporation in Qatar approved the study protocol (MRC-01-21-299). Results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Risk of Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Patients with Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases in Qatar: A Cohort Matched Study

Background: It remains unclear whether patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at a higher risk of poor outcomes from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We evaluated whether patients with an ARDs infected with SARS-CoV-2 were at a higher risk of a poorer outcome than those without an ARDs.

Methods: Patients with an ARDs infected with SARS-CoV-2 were matched to control patients without a known ARDs. Matching was performed according to age ( ± 6 years) and sex at a case-to-control ratio of 1:3. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the databases and were compared between the two groups. Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was the primary outcome and was defined as the requirement for oxygen therapy support, the need for invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, or the use of glucocorticoids.

Results: A total of 141 patients with an ARDs were matched to 398 patients who formed the control group. The mean ages (SD) of the ARDs and non-ARDs groups were 44.4 years (11.4) and 43.4 years (12.2). Women accounted for 58.8% of the ARDs group and 56.3% of the control group (p = 0.59). Demographics and comorbidities were balanced between the groups. ARDs included connective tissue disease in 43 (30.3%) patients, inflammatory arthritis in 92 (65.2%), and other ARDs in 8 (5.7%). ARDs medications included biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts-DMARDs) in 28 (15.6%) patients, conventional synthetic DMARDs in 95 (67.4%), and immunosuppressive antimetabolites in 13 (9.2%). The ARDs group had more respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection than the control group (24.8% and 20.6% vs. 10% and 5.3%, respectively; p <  0.001 for both). Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was more common in the ARDs group than in the control group (14.9% vs. 5.8%; p <  0.001).

Conclusions: In this single-center matched cohort study, patients with an ARDs experienced more respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection and had more severe infection than those from the control group. Therefore, patients with an ARDs require close observation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Clinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases

We investigated the performance of ANA-ELISA for CTDs screening and diagnosis and comparing it to the conventional ANA-IIF. ANA-ELISA is a solid-phase immune assay includes 17 ANA-targeted recombinant antigens; dsDNA, Sm-D, Rib-P, PCNA, U1-RNP (70, A, C), SS-A/Ro (52 and 60), SS-B/La, Centromere B, Scl-70, Fibrillarin, RNA Polymerase III, Jo-1, Mi-2, and PM-Scl. During the period between March till December 2016 all requests for ANA from primary, secondary, and tertiary care centers were processed with both techniques; ANA-IIF and ANA-ELISA. The electronic medical record of these patients was reviewed looking for CTD diagnosis documented by the Senior rheumatologist. SPSS 22 is used for analysis. Between March and December 2016, a total of 12,439 ANA tests were requested. 1457 patients were assessed by the rheumatologist and included in the analysis. At a cut-off ratio ≥ 1.0 for ANA-ELISA and a dilutional titre ≥ 1:80 for ANA-IIF, the sensitivity of ANA-IIF and ANA-ELISA for all CTDs were 63.3% vs 74.8% respectively. For the SLE it was 64.3% vs 76.9%, Sjogren’s Syndrome was 50% vs 76.9% respectively. The overall specificity of ANA-ELISA was 89.05%, which was slightly better than ANA-IIF 86.72%. The clinical performance of ANA-ELISA for CTDs screening showed better sensitivity and specificity as compared to the conventional ANA-IIF in our cohort.

Adaptation of the 2015 American College of Rheumatology treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis for the Eastern Mediterranean Region: an exemplar of the GRADE Adolopment

BACKGROUND

It has been hypothesized that adaptation of health practice guidelines to the local setting is expected to improve their uptake and implementation while cutting on required resources. We recently adapted the published American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) treatment guideline to the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). The objective of this paper is to describe the process used for the adaptation of the 2015 ACR guideline on the treatment of RA for the EMR.

METHODS

We used the GRADE-Adolopment methodology for the guideline adaptation process. We describe in detail how adolopment enhanced the efficiency of the following steps of the guideline adaptation process: (1) groups and roles, (2) selecting guideline topics, (3) identifying and training guideline panelists, (4) prioritizing questions and outcomes, (5) identifying, updating or conducting systematic reviews, (6) preparing GRADE evidence tables and EtD frameworks, (7) formulating and grading strength of recommendations, (8) using the GRADEpro-GDT software.

RESULTS

The adolopment process took 6 months from January to June 2016 with a project coordinator dedicating 40% of her time, and the two co-chairs dedicating 5% and 10% of their times respectively. In addition, a research assistant worked 60% of her time over the last 3 months of the project. We held our face-to-face panel meeting in Qatar. Our literature update included five newly published trials. The certainty of the evidence of three of the eight recommendations changed: one from moderate to very low and two from low to very low. The factors that justified a very low certainty of the evidence in the three recommendations were: serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision. The strength of five of the recommendations changed from strong to conditional. The factors that justified the conditional strength of these 5 recommendations were: cost (n = 5 [100%]), impact on health equities (n = 4 [80%]), the balance of benefits and harms (n = 1 [20%]) and acceptability (n = 1 [20%]).

CONCLUSION

This project confirmed the feasibility of GRADE-Adolopment. It also highlighted the value of collaboration with the organization that had originally developed the treatment guideline. We discuss the implications for both guideline adaptation and future research to advance the field.