METHODS: We conducted a literature search to identify and adapt a validated instrument. Cognitive interviews were conducted to examine students' understanding of scales and definitions of items. The instrument was then evaluated by education experts for further refinement. The reliability of the final instrument was assessed in a cohort of students, and unsuitable items were removed.
RESULTS: Students had issues understanding the scales and specific terms used in the original instrument, potentially due to differences in terminologies used in the university's context and variance in English proficiency levels and exposure. In the preference domain, wording of the instrument to present exclusively traditional classroom or exclusively flipped classroom statements greatly influenced its reliability. This could be due to exposure of students to a predominantly flipped classroom environment since inception. The final instrument optimized in this study had α = 0.85, 0.86, and 0.9 for the pre-activities, in-class lectures, and in-class workshops attitude domains, respectively, and α = 0.73 for the preference domain.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the necessity of contextualizing instruments to fit the local context in which they are administered and provides key recommendations when conducting such adaptations.
METHOD: The APLC cohort is an ongoing, prospective longitudinal cohort. Adult patients who meet either the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Modified Classification Criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) Classification Criteria, and provide informed consent are recruited into the cohort. Patients are routinely followed up at 3- to 6-monthly intervals. Information on demographics, clinical manifestations, treatment, pathology results, outcomes, and patient-reported quality of life (Short-form 36 version 2) are collected using a standardized case report form. Each site is responsible for obtaining local ethics and governance approval, patient recruitment, data collection, and data transfer into a centralized APLC database.
RESULTS: The latest APLC cohort comprises 2160 patients with >12 000 visits from Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. The APLC has proposed the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) as a treat-to-target (T2T) endpoint, and reported several retrospective and cross-sectional analyses consistent with the validity of LLDAS. Longitudinal validation of LLDAS as a T2T endpoint is currently underway.
CONCLUSION: The APLC cohort is one of the largest contemporary SLE patient cohorts in the world. It is the only cohort with substantial representation of Asian patients. This cohort represents a unique resource for future clinical research including evaluation of other endpoints and quality of care.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration cohort including disease activity (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K]) and medication details, captured at every visit from 2013-2018, were used. Medications were categorized as glucocorticoids (GCs), antimalarials (AM), and immunosuppressants (IS). Cox regression analyses were performed to determine the time-to-discontinuation of medications, stratified by SLE disease activity.
RESULTS: Data from 19,804 visits of 2,860 patients were analyzed. Eight medication categories were observed: no treatment; GC, AM, or IS only; GC plus AM; GC plus IS; AM plus IS; and GC plus AM plus IS (triple therapy). Triple therapy was the most frequent pattern (31.4% of visits); single agents were used in 21% of visits, and biologics in only 3%. Time-to-discontinuation analysis indicated that medication persistence varied widely, with the highest treatment persistence for AM and lowest for IS. Patients with a time-adjusted mean SLEDAI-2K score of ≥10 had lower discontinuation of GCs and higher discontinuation of IS.
CONCLUSION: Most patients received combination treatment. GC persistence was high, while IS persistence was low. Patients with high disease activity received more medication combinations but had reduced IS persistence, consistent with limited utility. These data confirm unmet need for improved SLE treatments.
METHODS: Data from the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration cohort, in which disease activity and medications were prospectively captured from 2013 to 2018, were used. Predictors of lymphopenia (lymphocyte count <0.8 × 109/l) and neutropenia (neutrophil count <1.5 × 109/l) were examined using multiple failure, time-dependent survival analyses.
RESULTS: Data from 2330 patients and 18 287 visits were analysed. One thousand and eighteen patients (43.7%) had at least one episode of leucopenia; 867 patients (37.2%) had lymphopenia, observed in 3065 (16.8%) visits, and 292 (12.5%) patients had neutropenia, in 622 (3.4%) visits. After multivariable analyses, lymphopenia was associated with overall disease activity, ESR, serology, prednisolone, AZA, MTX, tacrolimus, CYC and rituximab use. MTX and ciclosporin were negatively associated with neutropenia. Lupus low disease activity state was negatively associated with both lymphopenia and neutropenia.
CONCLUSION: Both lymphopenia and neutropenia were common in SLE patients but were differentially associated with disease and treatment variables. Lymphopenia and neutropenia should be considered independently in studies in SLE.
METHODS: We used data from a large multicenter, longitudinal SLE cohort in which patients received standard of care. The first visit with active disease (defined as SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≥6) was designated as baseline, and mSRI attainment (defined as a reduction in SLEDAI-2K ≥4 points with no worsening in physician global assessment ≥0.3 points) was determined at annual intervals from baseline up to 5 years. Associations between mSRI attainment and outcomes including disease activity, glucocorticoid dose, flare, damage accrual, Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS), and remission were studied.
RESULTS: We included 2,060 patients, with a median baseline SLEDAI-2K score of 8. An mSRI response was attained by 56% of patients at 1 year, with similar responder rates seen at subsequent annual time points. Compared to nonresponders, mSRI responders had significantly lower disease activity and prednisolone dose and higher proportions of LLDAS and remission attainment at each year, and less damage accrual at years 2 and 3. Furthermore, mSRI responder status at 1 year predicted clinical benefit at subsequent years across most outcomes, including damage accrual (odds ratio [OR] range 0.58-0.69, P
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: 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: 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: 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 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).