Long-Term Risk of Autoimmune Diseases other than Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus-Alone Patients: A 10-Year Nationwide Cohort Study

Polyautoimmunity in patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus: A nationwide sex- and age-matched cohort study from Denmark

Background

Polyautoimmunity is defined as having 2 or more autoimmune diseases. Little is known about polyautoimmunity in patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE).

Objectives

To estimate prevalence and 5-year incidence of non-lupus erythematosus (LE) autoimmune diseases in patients with CLE.

Methods

Patients with CLE were identified In the Danish National Patient Registry and each patient was age- and sex-matched with 10 general population controls. Outcome information on non-LE autoimmune diseases was obtained by register-linkage between Danish National Patient Registry and the National Prescription Register. The risk ratio (RR) for prevalent non-LE autoimmune disease at time of CLE diagnosis was calculated in modified Poisson regression; and hazard ratios (HRs) for incident non-LE autoimmune disease were estimated in Cox regression analyses.

Results

Overall, 1674 patients with CLE had a higher prevalence of a non-LE autoimmune disease than the comparators (18.5 vs 7.9%; RR 2.4; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.6). Correspondingly, the cumulative incidence of a non-LE autoimmune disease during 5 years of follow-up was increased for the patients with CLE: HR 3.5 (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.0).

Limitations

Risk of detection and misclassification bias, mainly pertaining to the CLE group.

Conclusion

Patients with CLE had higher prevalence and 5-year cumulative incidence of a non-LE autoimmune disease than the general population.

Spin Infrequently Occurs in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews For The Pharmacological Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

AIMS

Currently, there is a growing body of research demonstrating that spin - the misinterpretation and distortion of a study's findings - is common in different fields of medicine. To our knowledge, no study has investigated its presence in systematic reviews focused on diabetic therapies.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study by searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Our search retrieved 26,490 records, from which 199 studies were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study design parameters. Spin was presented as frequencies and odds ratios to identify associations between study characteristics.

RESULTS

Spin was identified in the abstracts of 15 systematic reviews (15/199, 7.5%). Spin type 5 was the most common type identified (7/199, 3.5%). Spin types 1, 2, 4, and 8 were not identified. In the last 5 years (2016-2021), 7 systematic reviews contained spin within their abstract. There was no association between spins presence and any extracted study characteristic .

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, any amount of spin can lead to the distortion of a reader's interpretation of the study's findings. Thus, we provide recommendations with rationale to prevent spin in future systematic reviews.