Background The highest number of COVID-19 cases in Italy have been reported in Lombardy, a region in northern Italy. We aimed to analyse the course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases living in a district of Lombardy with a high prevalence of COVID-19. MethodsWe did a single-centre observational study at the Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale (ASST) Spedali Civili of Brescia, Italy. We collected data from patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases enrolled in our outpatient clinic to identify confirmed or possible cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were collected through a survey that was administered via telephone or in the outpatient clinic by rheumatologists. We also did a case-control study of all patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia and rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who were admitted to the ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia during the study period. Cases were matched by age, sex, and month of hospital admission to at least two controls admitted to the same hospital for COVID-19 pneumonia during the study period. Findings Between Feb 24 and May 1, 2020, we collected data from 1525 patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: 117 (8%) presented with symptoms that were compatible with COVID-19. 65 patients had a swab confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas 52 presented with a spectrum of symptoms indicative of COVID-19 but were not swab tested. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were older than those with suspected COVID-19 (median age 68 [IQR 55-76] years vs 57 [49-67] years; p=0•0010) and more likely to have arterial hypertension (33 [51%] vs 14 [27%] patients; odds ratio [OR] 2•8 [95% CI 1•3-6•1]; p=0•031) and obesity (11 [17%] vs 1 [2%]; OR 11•0 [1•3-83•4]; p=0•0059). We found no differences in rheumatological disease or background therapy between confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases. 47 (72%) of the 65 patients with confirmed COVID-19 developed pneumonia that required admission to hospital. 12 (10%) deaths occurred among the 117 patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (ten in those with confirmed COVID-19 and two in those with suspected COVID-19). Deceased patients with confirmed COVID-19 were older than survivors (median age 78•8 years [IQR 75•3-81•3] vs 65•5 years [53•3-74•0]; p=0•0002). We observed no differences in sex, comorbidities, or therapies between the deceased patients and survivors. The case-control study comprised 26 patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and COVID-19 pneumonia and 62 matched controls. We found no significant differences between cases and controls in duration of COVID-19 symptoms before admission, duration of stay in hospital, or the local chest X-ray scoring system. Glucocorticoids were used for severe respiratory manifestations related to lung involvement in 17 (65%) of 26 cases and tocilizumab in six (23%) of 26; thrombotic events occurred in four (15%) of 26 cases. Four (15%) of 26 cases and six (10%) of 62 controls died...

Objective. It has been suggested that only antibodies against domain 1 (D1) of b 2 -glycoprotein I (b 2 GPI) are pathogenic and diagnostic. The role of antibodies against other b 2 GPI domains is still debated. This study was undertaken to evaluate the clinical relevance of domain specificity profiling of anti-b 2 GPI IgG antibodies in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) patients and in control groups of patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and in asymptomatic antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) carriers.Methods. We evaluated 159 subjects with persistently positive, medium or high-titer anti-b 2 GPI IgG, including 56 patients with thrombotic (obstetric or nonobstetric) primary APS, 31 women with obstetric primary APS, 42 aPL-positive patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases, and 30 asymptomatic aPL carriers. One hundred healthy donors were included. Anti-b 2 GPI D1 and D4/5 IgG were tested on research enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays containing recombinant b 2 GPI domains.Results. As compared to other groups, aPL carriers displayed higher frequency/titer of anti-D4/5 IgG. Unlike anti-D4/5, anti-D1 IgG antibodies were more frequent and at higher titer in triple than in single or double aPL-positive subjects. An anti-D1 to anti-D4/5 ratio of ‡1.5 was predictive of systemic autoimmunity (odds ratio 3.25 [95% confidence interval 1.45-7.49], P 5 0.005). Neither anti-D1 nor anti-D4/5 antibodies were associated with APS clinical criteria.Conclusion. Anti-D1 IgG is the preferential specificity not only in vascular and obstetric primary APS, but also in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease with no clinical features of APS. Conversely, aPL carriers do not have a polarized profile toward D1. Combined testing for anti-b 2 GPI IgG with different domain specificity allows a more accurate aPL profiling, with polarization toward anti-D1 IgG as a possible fingerprint of systemic autoimmunity.

Objectives To compare clinical features, laboratory data and fetal-maternal outcomes between 1000 women with obstetric APS (OAPS) and 640 with aPL-related obstetric complications not fulfilling Sydney criteria (non-criteria OAPS, NC-OAPS). Methods This was a retrospective and prospective multicentre study from the European Registry on Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome. Results A total of 1650 women with 5251 episodes, 3601 of which were historical and 1650 latest episodes, were included. Altogether, 1000 cases (OAPS group) fulfilled the Sydney classification criteria and 650 (NC-OAPS group) did not. Ten NC-OAPS cases were excluded for presenting thrombosis during follow-up. All cases were classified as category I (triple positivity or double positivity for aPL) or category II (simple positivity). Overall, aPL laboratory categories showed significant differences: 29.20% in OAPS vs 17.96% in NC-OAPS (P < 0.0001) for category I, and 70.8% in OAPS vs 82% in NC-OAPS (P < 0.0001) for category II. Significant differences were observed when current obstetric complications were compared (P < 0.001). However, major differences between groups were not observed in treatment rates, livebirths and thrombotic complications. In the NC-OAPS group, 176/640 (27.5%) did not fulfil Sydney clinical criteria (subgroup A), 175/640 (27.34%) had a low titre and/or non-persistent aPL positivity but did meet the clinical criteria (subgroup B) and 289/640 (45.15%) had a high aPL titre but did not fulfil Sydney clinical criteria (subgroup C). Conclusion Significant clinical and laboratory differences were found between groups. Fetal-maternal outcomes were similar in both groups when treated. These results suggest that we could improve our clinical practice with better understanding of NC-OAPS patients.

No abstract