METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, patients aged 18 years or older with SLE were recruited from 13 centres in eight countries and followed prospectively. Patients with at least two visits over the study period no more than 6 months apart were included in the longitudinal analysis. Patients with no visits in the final year of the study were censored from their last visit. Attainment of the lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) was assessed at each visit. The primary outcome measure was accrual of irreversible end-organ damage, defined as at least a 1-point increase in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index. We used time-dependent hazard regression models and generalised linear models to measure the association between LLDAS (attainment at any timepoint, cumulative time in LLDAS, and sustained LLDAS) with accrual of irreversible end-organ damage or flare (key secondary outcome). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138941.
FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016, 1707 patients were recruited and followed for a mean of 2·2 years (SD 0·9), totalling 12 689 visits. Attainment of LLDAS at any timepoint was associated with reduction in damage accrual (hazard ratio 0·59, 0·45-0·76; p<0·0001) and subsequent flare (0·65, 95% CI 0·56-0·75; p<0·0001). Cumulative time in LLDAS was associated with improved outcomes: compared with patients with less than 50% of observed time in LLDAS, those with at least 50% of observed time in LLDAS had reduced risk of damage accrual (0·54, 0·42-0·70; p<0·0001) and flare (0·41, 0·35-0·48; p<0·0001). Similarly, increased durations of sustained LLDAS were associated with incremental reductions in the risk of damage accrual. The association of LLDAS with reduced damage accrual was observed regardless of pre-existing damage or disease activity at study entry.
INTERPRETATION: LLDAS attainment is associated with significant protection against flare and damage accrual in SLE. These findings validate LLDAS as an endpoint for clinical studies in SLE.
FUNDING: The Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration received project support grants from UCB Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca.
METHODS: Data from a 13-country longitudinal SLE cohort were collected prospectively between 2013 and 2020. An inception cohort was defined based on disease duration < 1 year at enrollment. Patient characteristics between inception and noninception cohorts were compared. Survival analyses were performed to examine the association between LLDAS attainment and damage accrual and flare.
RESULTS: Of the total 4106 patients, 680 (16.6%) were recruited within 1 year of SLE diagnosis (inception cohort). Compared to the noninception cohort, inception cohort patients were significantly younger, had higher disease activity, and used more glucocorticoids, but had less organ damage at enrollment. Significantly fewer inception cohort patients were in LLDAS at enrollment than the noninception cohort (29.6% vs 52.3%, P < 0.001), but three-quarters of both groups achieved LLDAS at least once during follow-up. Limiting analysis only to patients not in LLDAS at enrollment, inception cohort patients were 60% more likely to attain LLDAS (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.16-1.61, P < 0.001) than noninception cohort patients and attained LLDAS significantly faster. LLDAS attainment was significantly protective against flare in both the inception and noninception cohorts. A total of 88 (13.6%) inception cohort patients accrued organ damage during a median 2.2 years of follow-up.
CONCLUSION: LLDAS attainment is protective from flare in recent onset SLE. Significant protection from damage accrual was not observed because of low rates of damage accrual in the first years after SLE diagnosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03138941).
METHODS: Data from a 12-country longitudinal SLE cohort, collected prospectively between 2013 and 2020, were analysed. SLE patients with mSACQ defined as the state with serological activity (increased anti-dsDNA and/or hypocomplementemia) but without clinical activity, treated with ≤7.5 mg/day of prednisolone-equivalent GCs and not-considering duration, were studied. The risk of subsequent flare or damage accrual per 1 mg decrease of prednisolone was assessed using Cox proportional hazard models while adjusting for confounders. Observation periods were 2 years and censored if each event occurred.
RESULTS: Data from 1850 mSACQ patients were analysed: 742, 271 and 180 patients experienced overall flare, severe flare and damage accrual, respectively. Tapering GCs by 1 mg/day of prednisolone was not associated with increased risk of overall or severe flare: adjusted HRs 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.05) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.004), respectively. Antimalarial use was associated with decreased flare risk. Tapering GCs was associated with decreased risk of damage accrual (adjusted HR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.99) in the patients whose initial prednisolone dosages were >5 mg/day.
CONCLUSIONS: In mSACQ patients, tapering GCs was not associated with increased flare risk. Antimalarial use was associated with decreased flare risk. Tapering GCs protected mSACQ patients treated with >5 mg/day of prednisolone against damage accrual. These findings suggest that cautious GC tapering is feasible and can reduce GC use in mSACQ patients.
METHODS: Data were analysed from patients in a multinational longitudinal cohort with known anti-dsDNA results from 2013 to 2021. Patients were categorized based on their anti-dsDNA results as persistently negative, fluctuating or persistently positive. Cox regression models were used to examine longitudinal associations of anti-dsDNA results with flare.
RESULTS: Data from 37 582 visits of 3484 patients were analysed. Of the patients 1029 (29.5%) had persistently positive anti-dsDNA and 1195 (34.3%) had fluctuating results. Anti-dsDNA expressed as a ratio to the normal cut-off was associated with the risk of subsequent flare, including in the persistently positive cohort (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.56; 95% CI: 1.30, 1.87; P 3. Both increases and decreases in anti-dsDNA more than 2-fold compared with the previous visit were associated with increased risk of flare in the fluctuating cohort (adjusted HR 1.33; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.65; P = 0.008) and the persistently positive cohort (adjusted HR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.71; P = 0.009).
CONCLUSION: Absolute value and change in anti-dsDNA titres predict flares, including in persistently anti-dsDNA positive patients. This indicates that repeat monitoring of dsDNA has value in routine testing.
METHODS: In this prospective, multinational, longitudinal cohort study, we used data from patients with SLE in the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration cohort collected between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2020. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) who met either the 1997 American College of Rheumatology modified classification criteria for SLE or the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and LLDAS, remission, and variations of remission with lower glucocorticoid thresholds were the primary exposure variables. Survival analyses were used to examine longitudinal associations between these endpoints and risk of mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138941.
FINDINGS: Among a total of 4106 patients in the cohort, 3811 (92·8%) patients were included in the final analysis (median follow-up 2·8 years [IQR 1·0-5·3]; 3509 [92·1%] women and 302 [7·9%] men), of whom 80 died during the observation period (crude mortality rate 6·4 deaths per 1000 person-years). LLDAS was attained at least once in 43 (53·8%) of 80 participants who died and in 3035 (81·3%) of 3731 participants who were alive at the end of the study (p<0·0001); 22 (27·5%) participants who died versus 1966 (52·7%) who were alive at the end of the study attained LLDAS for at least 50% of observed time (p<0·0001). Remission was attained by 32 (40·0%) of 80 who died and in 2403 (64·4%) of 3731 participants who were alive at the end of the study (p<0·0001); 14 (17·5%) participants who died versus 1389 (37·2%) who were alive at the end of the study attained remission for at least 50% of observed time (p<0·0001). LLDAS for at least 50% of observed time (adjusted hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·31-0·85]; p=0·010) and remission for at least 50% of observed time (0·52 [0·29-0·93]; p=0·027) were associated with reduced risk of mortality. Modifying the remission glucocorticoid threshold (<5·0 mg/day prednisolone) was more protective against mortality than current remission definitions (0·31 [0·12-0·77]; p=0·012), and glucocorticoid-free remission was the most protective (0·13 [0·02-0·96]; p=0·046).
INTERPRETATION: LLDAS significantly reduced the risk of mortality in patients with SLE. Remission did not further reduce the risk of mortality compared with LLDAS, unless lower glucocorticoid thresholds were used.
FUNDING: The Asia-Pacific Lupus Collaboration received funding from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and UCB for this study.
METHODS: We included patients from a multicentre longitudinal cohort (recruited between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2019) with active SLE (SLEDAI-2K ≥6) coinciding with an abnormality in at least one of 13 routine laboratory tests, at a visit designated as baseline. At 12 months, we analysed associations between thresholds of improvement in individual laboratory test results, measured as continuous variables, and five clinical outcomes using logistic regression. Primary outcomes were damage accrual and lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS), and secondary outcomes were modified SLE responder index (mSRI), physician global assessment (PGA) improvement of at least 0·3, and flare.
FINDINGS: We included 1525 patients (1415 [93%] women and 110 [7%] men, 1328 [87%] Asian ethnicity) in separate subsets for each laboratory test. The strongest associations with LLDAS and damage protection were seen with improvements in proteinuria (complete response: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 62·48, 95% CI 18·79-208·31 for LLDAS, OR 0·22, 95% CI 0·10-0·49 for damage accrual), albumin (complete response: adjusted OR 6·46, 95% CI 2·20-18·98 for LLDAS, OR 0·42, 95% CI 0·20-1·22 for damage accrual), haemoglobin (complete response: adjusted OR 1·97, 95% CI 1·09-3·53 for LLDAS, OR 0·33, 95% CI 0·15-0·71 for damage accrual), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (complete response: adjusted OR 1·71, 95% CI 1·10-2·67 for LLDAS, OR 0·53, 95% CI 0·30-0·94 for damage accrual), and platelets (complete response: adjusted OR 4·82, 95% CI 1·54-15·07 for LLDAS, OR 0·49, 95% CI 0·20-1·19 for damage accrual). Improvement in serological tests were mainly associated with PGA and mSRI. White cell and lymphocyte count improvements were least predictive.
INTERPRETATION: Improvements in several routine laboratory tests correspond with clinical outcomes in SLE over 12 months. Tests with the strongest associations were discrepant with laboratory tests included in current trial endpoints, and associations were observed across a range of improvement thresholds including incomplete resolution. These findings suggest the need to revise the use of laboratory test results in SLE trial endpoints.
FUNDING: Abbvie.
METHODS: This multinational cohort study was conducted at 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. We included adult patients aged 18 years or older with stable SLE who were receiving routine clinical care, had two or more visits and had attained stable disease at one or more visits. We categorised stable disease into: LLDAS (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤1, and prednisolone ≤7·5 mg/day); Definitions of Remission in SLE (DORIS) remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA <0·5, and prednisolone ≤5 mg/day); or complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA <0·5, and prednisolone ≤5 mg/day). Stable disease categories were mutually exclusive. Tapering was defined as any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate). Using multivariable generalised estimating equations, we compared flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the subsequent visit after drug tapering. We used generalised estimating equations and Cox proportional hazard models to compare tapering attempts that had begun in LLDAS, remission, and complete remission.
FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2020, 4106 patients were recruited to the cohort, 3002 (73·1%) of whom were included in our analysis. 2769 (92·2%) participants were female, 233 (7·8%) were male, and 2636 (88·1%) of 2993 with ethnicity data available were Asian. The median age was 39·5 years (IQR 29·0-50·0). There were 14 808 patient visits for patients in LLDAS, or remission or complete remission, of which 13 140 (88·7%) entered the final multivariable model after excluding missing data. Among the 9863 visits at which patients continued the same therapy, 1121 (11·4%) flared at the next visit, of which 221 (19·7%) were severe flares. Of the 3277 visits at which a patient received a tapering of therapy, 557 (17·0%) flared at the next visit, of which 120 (21·5%) were severe flares. Tapering was associated with higher odds of flare compared with continuing the same therapy (odds ratio [OR] 1·24 [95% CI 1·10-1·39]; p=0·0005). Of 2095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41·1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28·4%) in remission, and 639 (30·5%) in complete remission. Tapering initiated in LLDAS (OR 1·37 [95% CI 1·03-1·81]; p=0·029) or remission (1·45 [1·08-1·94]; p=0·013) had higher odds of flare in 1 year compared with complete remission. Tapering in LLDAS (hazard ratio 1·24 [95% CI 1·04-1·48]; p=0·016) or remission (1·30 [1·08-1·56]; p=0·0054) had a significantly shorter time to first flare than tapering initiated in complete remission. Attaining sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit, flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.
INTERPRETATION: Tapering of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE was associated with excess flares. Our findings suggest that drug tapering should be carefully considered, weighing the risks and benefits, and is best exercised in complete (clinical and serological) remission and after maintaining stable disease for at least 6 months.
FUNDING: AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lily, Janssen, Merck Serono, GSK, and UCB.
METHODS: We performed a prospective, population-based study of IBD incidence in predefined catchment areas, collecting data for 1 year, starting on April 1, 2011. New cases were ascertained from multiple overlapping sources and entered into a Web-based database. Cases were confirmed using standard criteria. Local endoscopy, pathology, and pharmacy records were searched to ensure completeness of case capture.
RESULTS: We identified 419 new cases of IBD (232 of ulcerative colitis [UC], 166 of Crohn's disease [CD], and 21 IBD-undetermined). The crude annual overall incidence values per 100,000 individuals were 1.37 for IBD in Asia (95% confidence interval: 1.25-1.51; 0.76 for UC, 0.54 for CD, and 0.07 for IBD-undetermined) and 23.67 in Australia (95% confidence interval: 18.46-29.85; 7.33 for UC, 14.00 for CD, and 2.33 for IBD-undetermined). China had the highest incidence of IBD in Asia (3.44 per 100,000 individuals). The ratios of UC to CD were 2.0 in Asia and 0.5 in Australia. Median time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 5.5 months (interquartile range, 1.4-15 months). Complicated CD (stricturing, penetrating, or perianal disease) was more common in Asia than Australia (52% vs 24%; P = .001), and a family history of IBD was less common in Asia (3% vs 17%; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: We performed a large-scale population-based study and found that although the incidence of IBD varies throughout Asia, it is still lower than in the West. IBD can be as severe or more severe in Asia than in the West. The emergence of IBD in Asia will result in the need for specific health care resources, and offers a unique opportunity to study etiologic factors in developing nations.
METHODS: Using rapid evaluation methods, we will use four data collection methods: 1) registry embedded indicators to assess quality of care processes and their associated outcomes; 2) process mapping to provide a preliminary framework to understand gaps between current and desired care practices; 3) structured observations of processes of interest identified from the process mapping and; 4) focus group discussions with stakeholders to identify barriers and enablers influencing the gap between current and desired care practices. We will also collect self-assessments of readiness for quality improvement. Data collection and analysis will be led by local stakeholders, performed in parallel and through an iterative process across eight countries: Kenya, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study will provide essential information on where and how care processes can be improved to facilitate better quality of care to critically ill patients in LMICs; thus, reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in ICUs. Furthermore, understanding the rapid evaluation methods that will be used for this study will allow other researchers and healthcare professionals to carry out similar research in ICUs and other health services.