ObjectivesTo describe the safety of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in people with inflammatory/autoimmune rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (I-RMD).MethodsPhysician-reported registry of I-RMD and non-inflammatory RMD (NI-RMDs) patients vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. From 5 February 2021 to 27 July 2021, we collected data on demographics, vaccination, RMD diagnosis, disease activity, immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive treatments, flares, adverse events (AEs) and SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Data were analysed descriptively.ResultsThe study included 5121 participants from 30 countries, 90% with I-RMDs (n=4604, 68% female, mean age 60.5 years) and 10% with NI-RMDs (n=517, 77% female, mean age 71.4). Inflammatory joint diseases (58%), connective tissue diseases (18%) and vasculitis (12%) were the most frequent diagnostic groups; 54% received conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), 42% biological DMARDs and 35% immunosuppressants. Most patients received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (70%), 17% AstraZeneca/Oxford and 8% Moderna. In fully vaccinated cases, breakthrough infections were reported in 0.7% of I-RMD patients and 1.1% of NI-RMD patients. I-RMD flares were reported in 4.4% of cases (0.6% severe), 1.5% resulting in medication changes. AEs were reported in 37% of cases (37% I-RMD, 40% NI-RMD), serious AEs in 0.5% (0.4% I-RMD, 1.9% NI-RMD).ConclusionThe safety profiles of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with I-RMD was reassuring and comparable with patients with NI-RMDs. The majority of patients tolerated their vaccination well with rare reports of I-RMD flare and very rare reports of serious AEs. These findings should provide reassurance to rheumatologists and vaccine recipients and promote confidence in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety in I-RMD patients.

Objective In current management paradigms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), patient global assessment (PGA) is crucial to decide whether a patient has attained remission (target) or needs reinforced therapy. We investigated whether the clinical and psychological determinants of PGA are appropriate to support this important role. Methods This was a cross‐sectional, single‐center study including consecutive ambulatory RA patients. Data collection comprised swollen 28‐joint count (SJC28), tender 28‐joint count (TJC28), C‐reactive protein (CRP) level, PGA, pain, fatigue, function, anxiety, depression, happiness, personality traits, and comorbidities. Remission was categorized using American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Boolean‐based criteria: remission, near‐remission (only PGA >1), and nonremission. A binary definition without PGA (3v‐remission) was also studied. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to identify explanatory variables of PGA in each remission state. Results A total of 309 patients were included (remission 9.4%, near‐remission 37.2%, and nonremission 53.4%). Patients in near‐remission were indistinguishable from remission regarding disease activity, but described a disease impact similar to those in nonremission. In multivariable analyses, PGA in near‐remission was explained (R2adjusted = 0.50) by fatigue, pain, anxiety, and function. Fatigue and pain had no relationship with disease activity measures. Conclusion In RA, a consensually acceptable level of disease activity (SJC28, TJC28, and CRP level ≤1) does not equate to low disease impact: a large proportion of these patients are considered in nonremission solely due to PGA. PGA mainly reflects fatigue, pain, function, and psychological domains, which are inadequate to define the target for immunosuppressive therapy. This consideration suggests that clinical practice should be guided by 2 separate remission targets: inflammation (3v‐remission) and disease impact.

Objective. The new Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) 2012 classification criteria aimed to improve the performance of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification over the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997 criteria. However, the SLICC 2012 criteria need further external validation. Our objective was to compare the sensitivity for SLE classification between the ACR 1997 and the SLICC 2012 criteria sets in a real-life, multicenter, international SLE population. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of patients with a clinical diagnosis of SLE followed at the participating rheumatology centers and registered in the Portuguese and Spanish national registries. The sensitivity of the 2 classification sets was compared using McNemar's test. The sensitivity of ACR 1997 and SLICC 2012 was further examined in 5 subgroups, defined according to disease duration. Results. We included 2,055 SLE patients (female 91.4%, white 93.5%, mean 6 SD age at disease onset 33.1 6 14.4 years, mean 6 SD age at SLE diagnosis 35.3 6 14.7 years, and mean 6 SD age at the time of the study 47.4 6 14.6 years) from 17 centers. The sensitivity for SLE classification was higher with the SLICC 2012 than with the ACR 1997 (93.2% versus 85.6%; P < 0.0001). Of 296 patients not fulfilling the ACR 1997, 62.8% could be classified with the SLICC 2012. The subgroup of patients with £5 years since disease onset presented the largest difference in sensitivity between the SLICC 2012 and the ACR 1997 (89.3% versus 76.0%; P < 0.0001); this difference diminished with longer disease duration, and it was no longer significant for patients with >20 years of disease duration. Conclusion. The SLICC 2012 criteria were more sensitive than the ACR 1997 criteria in real-life clinical practice in SLE. The SLICC 2012 criteria may allow patients to be classified as having SLE earlier in the disease course.