Aim To determine characteristics associated with more severe outcomes in a global registry of people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and COVID-19. Methods People with SLE and COVID-19 reported in the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry from March 2020 to June 2021 were included. The ordinal outcome was defined as: (1) not hospitalised, (2) hospitalised with no oxygenation, (3) hospitalised with any ventilation or oxygenation and (4) death. A multivariable ordinal logistic regression model was constructed to assess the relationship between COVID-19 severity and demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medications and disease activity. Results A total of 1606 people with SLE were included. In the multivariable model, older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.04), male sex (1.50, 1.01 to 2.23), prednisone dose (1–5 mg/day 1.86, 1.20 to 2.66, 6–9 mg/day 2.47, 1.24 to 4.86 and ≥10 mg/day 1.95, 1.27 to 2.99), no current treatment (1.80, 1.17 to 2.75), comorbidities (eg, kidney disease 3.51, 2.42 to 5.09, cardiovascular disease/hypertension 1.69, 1.25 to 2.29) and moderate or high SLE disease activity (vs remission; 1.61, 1.02 to 2.54 and 3.94, 2.11 to 7.34, respectively) were associated with more severe outcomes. In age-adjusted and sex-adjusted models, mycophenolate, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were associated with worse outcomes compared with hydroxychloroquine; outcomes were more favourable with methotrexate and belimumab. Conclusions More severe COVID-19 outcomes in individuals with SLE are largely driven by demographic factors, comorbidities and untreated or active SLE. Patients using glucocorticoids also experienced more severe outcomes.

Background/Objective: The Latin American population living with lupus lacks reliable and culturally competent health education resources. We describe a Spanish and Portuguese online program to educate Latin American people about lupus. Methods: An extensive network of Latin American stakeholders participated in the program design, implementation, dissemination, and evaluation. Patients and rheumatologists selected core topics. Rheumatologists prepared the content using evidence-based data. Adaptations were conducted to meet the audience's health literacy and cultural values. Social media was used to post audiovisual resources and facilitate users' interactions with peers and educators, and a Web site was created to offer in-depth knowledge. Results: The most massive outreach was through Facebook, with more than 20 million people reached and 80,000 followers at 3 months, between the Spanish and Portuguese pages. Nearly 90% of followers were from Latin America. A high engagement and positive responses to a satisfaction survey indicate that Facebook users valued these resources. The Spanish and Portuguese Web sites accumulated more than 62,000 page views, and 71.7% of viewers were from Latin American. Conclusions: The engagement of patients and stakeholders is critical to provide and disseminate reliable lupus education. Social media can be used to educate and facilitate interactions between people affected by lupus and qualified health care professionals. Social media–based health education has extensive and scalable outreach but is more taxing for the professional team than the Web site. However, the Web site is less likely to be used as a primary education source by Latin American people because they value social interactions when seeking lupus information.

Background: Patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) are at increased risk of infections, including significant morbidity and high mortality. Considering the potential for unfavorable outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with IMRD, several questions were raised regarding the impact of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic. Objective: This paper presents the protocol of a study that aims to prospectively evaluate patients with IMRD and a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis (using criteria provided by the Brazilian Ministry of Health). Methods: The study comprised a prospective, observational cohort (patients with IMRD and COVID-19) and a comparison group (patients with only IMRD), with a follow-up time of 6 months to evaluate differences in health outcomes. The primary outcomes will be changes in IMRD disease activity after SARS-CoV-2 infection at 4 time points: (1) at baseline, (2) within 4-6 weeks after infection, (3) at 3 months after the second assessment (±15 days), and (4) at 6 months (±15 days). The secondary outcomes will be the progression rate to moderate or severe forms of COVID-19, need for intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation, death, and therapeutic changes related to IMRD. Two outcomes—pulmonary and thromboembolic events in patients with both IMRD and SARS-CoV-2 infection—are of particular interest and will be monitored with close attention (clinical, laboratory, and function tests as well as imaging). Results: Recruitment opened in May 2020, with 1300 participants recruited from 43 sites as of November 2020. Patient recruitment will conclude by the end of December 2020, with follow-up occurring until April 2021. Data analysis is scheduled to start after all inclusion data have been collected, with an aim to publish a peer-reviewed paper in December 2020. Conclusions: We believe this study will provide clinically relevant data on the general impact of COVID-19 on patients with IMRD. Trial Registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials RBR-33YTQC; http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-33ytqc/ International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24357

Objective: To develop the second evidence-based Brazilian Society of Rheumatology consensus for diagnosis and treatment of lupus nephritis (LN). Methods: Two methodologists and 20 rheumatologists from Lupus Comittee of Brazilian Society of Rheumatology participate in the development of this guideline. Fourteen PICO questions were defined and a systematic review was performed. Eligible randomized controlled trials were analyzed regarding complete renal remission, partial renal remission, serum creatinine, proteinuria, serum creatinine doubling, progression to end-stage renal disease, renal relapse, and severe adverse events (infections and mortality). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to develop these recommendations. Recommendations required ≥82% of agreement among the voting members and were classified as strongly in favor, weakly in favor, conditional, weakly against or strongly against a particular intervention. Other aspects of LN management (diagnosis, general principles of treatment, treatment of comorbidities and refractory cases) were evaluated through literature review and expert opinion. Results: All SLE patients should undergo creatinine and urinalysis tests to assess renal involvement. Kidney biopsy is considered the gold standard for diagnosing LN but, if it is not available or there is a contraindication to the procedure, therapeutic decisions should be based on clinical and laboratory parameters. Fourteen recommendations were developed. Target Renal response (TRR) was defined as improvement or maintenance of renal function (±10% at baseline of treatment) combined with a decrease in 24-h proteinuria or 24-h UPCR of 25% at 3 months, a decrease of 50% at 6 months, and proteinuria < 0.8 g/24 h at 12 months. Hydroxychloroquine should be prescribed to all SLE patients, except in cases of contraindication. Glucocorticoids should be used at the lowest dose and for the minimal necessary period. In class III or IV (±V), mycophenolate (MMF), cyclophosphamide, MMF plus tacrolimus (TAC), MMF plus belimumab or TAC can be used as induction therapy. For maintenance therapy, MMF or azathioprine (AZA) are the first choice and TAC or cyclosporin or leflunomide can be used in patients who cannot use MMF or AZA. Rituximab can be prescribed in cases of refractory disease. In cases of failure in achieving TRR, it is important to assess adherence, immunosuppressant dosage, adjuvant therapy, comorbidities, and consider biopsy/rebiopsy. Conclusion: This consensus provides evidence-based data to guide LN diagnosis and treatment, supporting the development of public and supplementary health policies in Brazil.

To determine the incidence of positive CMV antigenemia (CMV-Ag) in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRD) and to describe the outcomes of these patients. From January 2011 to December 2014, a total of 443 patients with AIRD were enrolled in this retrospective analysis. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data, current clinical manifestations, organs affected by CMV infection, therapeutic management and outcomes were evaluated. The CMV-Ag was considered positive when one cell was detected at least. CMV-Ag was requested in 70 (15.8%) patients with suspicious CMV infection and was positive in 24 (34.3%). The incidence rate of positive CMV-Ag was 4.97% (95% CI 3.1-7.4%). Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (59%), followed by ANCA-related vasculitis (18.2%) and rheumatoid arthritis (9%) were the diseases more associated with positive CMV-Ag. At the time of CMV infection, SLE patients had moderate to severe disease activity, with high frequency of positive anti-dsDNA antibody (69.2%) and complement consumption (61.5%), as well as high doses of corticosteroids and use of immunosuppressants. The main CMV sites involved were lung (45.5%), bone marrow (40.9%) and gut (27.3%). Mortality rate was 45.5%, especially in those with higher doses of daily oral corticosteroids (107 ± 55.4 mg vs. 71.7 ± 46.3 mg; p = 0.07) and lower number of lymphocytes (309 ± 368.2/mm3 vs. 821 ± 692.9/mm3; p = 0.06). Our data showed high incidence of CMV-Ag in AIRD patients, particularly those with SLE and greater disease severity. In addition, it was observed high mortality in these patients, highlighting the CMV infection should be included in differential diagnosis.

Objective: To provide guidelines on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) to rheumatologists considering specific scenarios of the daily practice based on the shared-making decision (SMD) process. Methods: A task force was constituted by 24 rheumatologists (panel members), with clinical and research expertise in immunizations and infectious diseases in immunocompromised patients, endorsed by the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (BSR), to develop guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IMRD. A consensus was built through the Delphi method and involved four rounds of anonymous voting, where five options were used to determine the level of agreement (LOA), based on the Likert Scale: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree (neutral); (4) agree; and (5) strongly agree. Nineteen questions were addressed and discussed via teleconference to formulate the answers. In order to identify the relevant data on COVID-19 vaccines, a search with standardized descriptors and synonyms was performed on September 10th, 2021, of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and LILACS to identify studies of interest. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of nonrandomized studies. Results: All the nineteen questions-answers (Q&A) were approved by the BSR Task Force with more than 80% of panelists voting options 4—agree—and 5—strongly agree—, and a consensus was reached. These Guidelines were focused in SMD on the most appropriate timing for IMRD patients to get vaccinated to reach the adequate covid-19 vaccination response. Conclusion: These guidelines were developed by a BSR Task Force with a high LOA among panelists, based on the literature review of published studies and expert opinion for COVID-19 vaccination in IMRD patients. Noteworthy, in the pandemic period, up to the time of the review and the consensus process for this document, high-quality evidence was scarce. Thus, it is not a substitute for clinical judgment.