ABSTRACT
Background/Aims The impact of the pandemic on the incidence and management of inflammatory arthritis (IA) is not understood. Routinely-captured data in secure platforms, such as OpenSAFELY, offer unique opportunities to understand how IA was impacted upon by the pandemic. Our objective was to use OpenSAFELY to assess the effects of the pandemic on diagnostic incidence and care delivery for IA in England, and replicate key metrics from the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we used primary care and hospital data for 17 million adults registered with general practices using TPP health record software, to explore the following outcomes between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022: 1) incidence of IA diagnoses (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, undifferentiated IA) recorded in primary care;2) time to first rheumatology assessment;3) time to first prescription of a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) in primary care, and choice of first csDMARD. Results From 17,683,500 adults (representing 40% of the English population), there were 31,280 incident IA diagnoses recorded between April 2019 and March 2022. New IA diagnoses decreased by 39.7% in the early months of the pandemic. Overall, a 20.3% decrease in IA diagnoses was seen in the year commencing April 2020, relative to the preceding year (5.1 vs. 6.4 diagnoses per 10,000 adults, respectively). Further decreases coincided with rising COVID-19 numbers, before returning to pre-pandemic levels by the end of the study period. No rebound increase in IA incidence was observed as of April 2022. The median time from referral to first rheumatology assessment was shorter during the pandemic (18 days;IQR 8-35 days) than before (21 days;9-41 days). The proportion of patients prescribed csDMARDs in primary care was comparable to before the pandemic;however, fewer people were prescribed methotrexate or leflunomide, and more were prescribed sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine. Conclusion IA diagnoses decreased markedly during the early phase of the pandemic;however, the impact on rheumatology assessment times and DMARD prescribing was less marked than might have been anticipated. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using routinelycaptured, near real-time data in the secure OpenSAFELY platform to benchmark care quality on a national scale, without the need for manual data collection.
ABSTRACT
Background: There has been a major concern about the impact of COVID-19 in patients with infammatory arthritis during the pandemic, with recommendations from governments for patients to shield. Objectives: Our aim was to describe the risk factors for COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality amongst patients recruited to the National Early Infammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA) in England. Methods: An observational cohort study design was used. The population included adults in England with new diagnoses of infammatory arthritis between May 2018 and March 2021 who enrolled in NEIAA. The outcomes were hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (primary admission reason or nosocomial acquisition) and death due to COVID-19 (COVID-19 stated on a death certifcate), identifed via linkage with secondary care records. Hazard ratios were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models, with adjustment for patient factors (age, gender, smoking status, and comorbidity) and disease factors (seropositivity, 28-joint disease activity score, patient-reported disability (HAQ), and functional impact (MSK-HQ)) recorded at baseline. Individuals were considered at risk from the date of diagnosis or February 2020 (whichever was later) and censored at a COVID-19 event, death or May 2021 (whichever was sooner). Results: 14,127 patients were included. The mean age was 57 years;62% were female;19% were current smokers, while 29% were ex-smokers. The frequency of comorbidities at baseline were: hypertension (19%), diabetes mellitus (9%), and lung disease (9%). Overall, 20% had two or more comorbidities. Rheumatoid factor or CCP antibodies were positive in 56%. At presentation, mean scores for DAS28 were 4.6 (+/-1.5), 1. 1 (+/-0.7) for HAQ, and 25 (+/-11) for MSK-HQ. Initial DMARD therapy was known for 13,682/14,127 patients: methotrexate was the most common (54%), followed by hydroxychloroquine (23%), and sulfasalazine (11%). There were 143 COVID-19 hospital admissions and 47 deaths, corresponding to incidence rates per 100 person-years for hospitalisation: 0.94 [95% CI: 0.79-1.10] and death: 0.31 [95% CI: 0.23-0.41]. Increasing age, male gender, diabetes, hypertension, lung disease and smoking status all predicted COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. Higher baseline DAS28 predicted COVID-19 hospitalisation (HR 1.24 [95% CI: 1.10-1.39]) and mortality (HR 1.33 [95% CI: 1.09-1.63]). Higher HAQ predicted both COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. Seropositivity was not a signifcant predictor of any COVID-19 event, nor was MSK-HQ. In unadjusted models, corticosteroids associated with COVID-19 death (HR 2.29 [95% CI: 1.02-5.13], and sulfasalazine monotherapy associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation (HR 1.93 [95% CI: 1.04-3.56]. In adjusted models, associations for corticoster-oids and sulfasalazine were no longer signifcant. Only age, smoking status, and comorbidities independently predicted COVID-19 events. Conclusion: The burden of COVID-19 amongst early arthritis patients was substantial during the pandemic, with concerns about the use of csDMARDs and corticosteroids.1,2 Patient characteristics and rheumatoid disease severity at diagnosis appear to be the more important predictors of COVID-19 events than initial treatment strategy. An important limitation is that we have not looked at treatment changes over time, and must acknowledge that many patients, especially those recruited in 2019, may have changed therapy prior to the pandemic.
ABSTRACT
Background: There has been considerable uncertainty about the impact of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) on COVID-19 morbidity and vaccine efficacy, which may have influenced prescribing during the pandemic. Objectives: To assess trends in the prescription of three commonly used bDMARDs with different modes of action-adalimumab (ADA), rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TOC)-in England before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The National Health Service (NHS) Secondary Care Medicines dataset was utilised to analyse temporal trends in bDMARD prescriptions issued by all NHS hospital pharmacies in England. Monthly averages of prescriptions issued for ADA, RTX and TOC for combined indications, standardised using WHO Defned Daily Doses (DDD), were described from January 2019 to November 2021. Interrupted time-series analyses (ITSA) were used to estimate the effect of the pandemic on prescription trends for ADA, RTX and TOC;Newey-West standard errors with lags were used to account for autocorrelation between observation periods in these models. Results: Temporal trends in ADA, RTX and TOC prescriptions are shown in Figure 1. A 46% decrease in RTX prescriptions was observed between March and April 2020, from 1,338,300 DDD to 718,900 DDD, respectively, coinciding with the worsening COVID-19 pandemic in England. RTX prescriptions increased after May 2020, refected in the positive prescription trend observed in ITSA models (Table 1);however, RTX prescriptions remained below pre-pandemic levels, before decreasing again between November 2020 and February 2021. This coincided with increasing COVID-19 case numbers in England. For ADA, the pre-pandemic trend of increasing prescriptions continued during the pandemic, with no differences in prescription trends seen in ITSA models (Table 1). A 22% decrease in ADA prescriptions was observed between September and October 2020, from 2,037,800 DDD to 1,587,500 DDD, respectively, before rebounding to above pre-pandemic levels. Prescriptions for TOC increased during the pandemic, driven primarily by a 76% increase in prescriptions between December 2020 and January 2021, from 241,800 DDD to 425,000 DDD, respectively. Conclusion: Prescriptions for RTX in England halved during the early COVID-19 pandemic, and remain below pre-pandemic levels as of November 2021. This likely refects concerns about RTX use and increased COVID-19 mortality and reduced vaccine efficacy.1,2 In contrast, prescriptions for ADA have continued to increase during the pandemic, while prescriptions for TOC surged in December 2020, coinciding with the more widespread use of TOC for the treatment of severe COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims The impact of dealing with COVID-19 for rheumatology higher specialist trainees has been profound. Sacrifices were made to their training to support the UK's pandemic response. Virtual Reality (VR) has long been used as a solution for specific surgical skills;providing a hands-on experience to enable specific delivery of outcomes. We utilised existing technology alongside a specialist VR and haptics team to review ways at delivering a valid and reliable training tool to administer joint injections, beginning with the review of this procedure specific to the knee. We aimed to describe this process. Methods A qualitative study using focus groups was undertaken, one medical student, four higher specialty trainees and two consultants were convened in a focus group to review existing mannequin-based training with the purpose of identifying a skill to develop in virtual reality. A story board was developed through collaboration with a graphic designer. The scenario was imbedded into a virtual reality environment in collaboration with a virtual reality partner. Results The focus group identified intra-articular knee injection as the most appropriate rheumatology skill to develop. Storyboarding built a series of scenarios around clinical situations which would require injection or aspiration. Working with the engineering team we successfully mapped knee joint anatomy and rendered an authentic clinical environment for the storyboards to run inside. Conclusion Virtual reality training scenarios are complex to develop but have enormous potential to create immersive training and assessment experiences which are not boundaried by the challenges of social distancing and COVID-19 risks.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims Patients with inflammatory arthritis were identified as a potentially vulnerable group during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recommendations from the UK government to shield. We set out to describe the risks of COVID-19 according to initial treatment strategy amongst patients recruited to the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA). Methods NEIAA is an observational cohort design. It includes adults in England with a new diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis between May 2018 and March 2021. The outcomes of interest were death due to COVID-19 (COVID-19 stated on a death certificate) and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (primary admission reason or nosocomial acquisition), identified using NHS Digital linkage. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios, with adjustment for patient factors (age, gender, smoking status, comorbidity) and disease factors (seropositivity, disease severity (DAS28), patient-reported disability (HAQ) and functional impact (MSK-HQ)) recorded at baseline. Individuals were considered at risk from February 2020 or date of diagnosis (whichever was later) and censored at a COVID-19 event, May 2021 or death (whichever was sooner). Results 14,127 patients were included. Mean age was 57 (+/-16);62% were female. Smoking status: 19% current;29% ex-smokers. Comorbidities: 19% hypertension;9% diabetes;and 9% lung disease. Overall, 20% had two or more comorbidities. Rheumatoid Factor or CCP antibodies were positive in 56%. At presentation, mean scores were 4.6 (+/-1.5) for DAS28, 1.1 (+/-0.7) for HAQ and 25 (+/-11) for MSK-HQ. Initial DMARD therapy was known for 13,682/14,127 patients;methotrexate was most common (54%), then hydroxychloroquine (23%) and sulfasalazine (11%). There were 143 COVID-19 hospital admissions and 47 deaths, corresponding to incidence rates per 100 person-years for hospitalisation: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.79-1.10) and death: 0.31 (95% CI: 0.23-0.41). Increasing age, male gender, diabetes, hypertension, lung disease and smoking status all predicted COVID-19 events. Higher baseline DAS28 predicted COVID-19 admission (HR 1.24 (95% CI: 1.10-1.39)) and mortality (HR 1.33 (95% CI: 1.09-1.63)). Higher HAQ predicted both COVID-19 admission and death. Seropositivity was not a significant predictor of any COVID- 19 event, nor was MSK-HQ. Unadjusted, corticosteroids associated with COVID-19 death (HR 2.29 (95% CI: 1.02-5.13)), and sulfasalazine monotherapy associated with COVID-19 admission (HR 1.93 (95% CI: 1.04-3.56)). In adjusted models, associations for corticosteroids and sulfasalazine were no longer significant. Only age, smoking status, and comorbidities independently predicted COVID-19 events. Conclusion The burden of COVID-19 amongst early arthritis patients was substantial during the pandemic. Patient characteristics and rheumatoid disease severity at diagnosis appear to be the more important predictors of COVID-19 events than initial treatment strategy. An important limitation is that we have not looked at treatment changes over time, and must acknowledge that many patients, especially those recruited in 2019, may have changed therapy prior to the pandemic.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: COVID-19 disease, thought to originate from China, is now a global pandemic. It shows a variety of pulmonary manifestations, mostly in the form of ground-glass opacities with a peripheral distribution. Less common manifestations such as pneumomediastinum have also been reported. The aim of this study is to make a contribution to the literature to be familiar with uncommon symptoms and presentations and highlight the importance of early diagnosis. Materials and methods: Patients with pneumomediastinum on computed tomography (CT) and COVID-19, which was confirmed by positive real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test result included in the study. Patient data were collected retrospectively from medical records. Results: In 7 patients, pneumomediastinum was the initial presentation, while two were diagnosed with CT Pneumomediastinum after the COVID-19 diagnosis. All patients had mild disease, underwent conservative therapy, and no complication was observed during the follow-up period. Conclusion: In the second year of the pandemic, the disease still manifests itself with some rare pulmonary and extrapulmonary symptoms. It is crucial to be familiar with these uncommon presentations and diagnose patients at early stages.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Myalgia is a widely publicised feature of Covid-19, but severe muscle injury can occur. This systematic review summarises relevant evidence for skeletal muscle involvement in Covid-19. METHODS: A systematic search of OVID and Medline databases was conducted on 16/3/2021 and updated on 28/10/2021 to identify case reports or observational studies relating to skeletal muscle manifestations of Covid-19 (PROSPERO: CRD42020198637). Data from rhabdomyolysis case reports were combined and summary descriptive statistics calculated. Data relating to other manifestations were analysed for narrative review. RESULTS: 1920 articles were identified. From these, 61 case reports/series met inclusion criteria, covering 86 rhabdomyolysis cases. Median age of rhabdomyolysis patients was 50 years, (range 6-89). 49% had either hypertension, diabetes mellitus or obesity. 77% were male. Symptoms included myalgia (74%), fever (69%), cough (59%), dyspnoea (68%). Median peak CK was 15,783U/L. 28% required intravenous haemofiltration and 36% underwent mechanical ventilation. 62% recovered to discharge and 30% died. Dyspnoea, elevated CRP and need for intravenous haemofiltration increased risk of fatal outcome. Additional articles relating to skeletal muscular pathologies include 6 possible concomitant diagnoses or relapses of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and 10 reports of viral-induced muscle injuries without rhabdomyolysis. Localised myositis and rhabdomyolysis with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been reported. CONCLUSIONS: Rhabdomyolysis is an infrequent but important complication of Covid-19. Increased mortality was associated with a high CRP, renal replacement therapy and dyspnoea. The idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) may have viral environmental triggers. However, to date the limited number of case reports do not confirm an association with Covid-19.
ABSTRACT
AIM: Vitamin D, which has immunomodulatory effect, can reduce risk of infections and concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the levels of vitamin D and severity of COVID-19. METHODS: A total of 204 patients with COVID-19 disease were enrolled in the study. All patients had viral pneumonia, which was confirmed with chest computer tomography. All cases were divided in two groups- mild (outpatients); and serious (inpatients)- according to their clinical and laboratory data. Serum vitamin D levels were measured by chemiluminescence method. RESULTS: Vitamin D deficiency was found in 41.7 % (n = 85) of cases and insufficiency was found in 46.0 % (n = 94), while in 12.3 % (n = 25) of cases normal vitamin D levels were found. The odds of having a serious clinical outcome were increased for vitamin D insufficiency patients 5.604 times (%95 CI:0.633-49.584) and for vitamin D deficiency patients 38.095 times (%95 CI:2.965-489.50) for each standard deviation decrease in serum 25(OH)D. CONCLUSION: Adequate levels of vitamin D could suppress inflammation and reduce the severity of COVID-19. Vitamin D supplementation may have an important role in decreasing the impact of the pandemic (Tab. 5, Fig. 2, Ref. 27).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vitamin D Deficiency , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vitamin D , Vitamin D Deficiency/epidemiology , VitaminsABSTRACT
Background and study aims: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic especially worries people with chronic diseases the entire world. In this study, the frequency, and clinical course of COVID-19 infection in patients with Celiac disease (CD) were investigated. CD patients' adherence to purchasing gluten free products (GFPs), the strict diet, and how patients' anxiety affects CD symptoms during the COVID-19 outbreak were also examined. Patients and methods: A detailed questionnaire was administered by telephone and emailed to the CD patients to determine the status of these patients in obtaining GFPs, and dietary compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic. State and trait anxiety levels of patients were evaluated using the State-trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scale. Additionally, whether patients with CD were diagnosed with COVID-19, and if diagnosed, their clinical course of the disease were investigated. Results: One hundred and one patients were included in the study. The total number of patients who could obtain GFPs decreased significantly in the pandemic than before the pandemic. The patients' state anxiety index was 40.7±7.9, and the trait anxiety index was 44.5±8.5, and all patients were evaluated as mildly anxious. During the pandemic, two female patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. Conclusion: CD patients did not have any additional risk compared to other individuals in terms of becoming infected with COVID-19 for patients under gluten free diet, and these patients will have a similar clinical course as individuals without CD. © Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica.