ABSTRACT
Objectives: Uncertainty regarding the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), its complications and the safety of immunosuppressive therapies may drive anxiety among adults and parents of children and young people (CYP) with rheumatic diseases. This study explored trajectories of COVID-related anxiety in adults and parents of CYP with rheumatic diseases. Methods: Adults and parents of CYP participating in the international COVID-19 European Patient Registry were included in the current study if they had enrolled in the 4 weeks following 24 March 2020. COVID-related anxiety scores (0-10) were collected weekly for up to 28 weeks.Group-based trajectory models explored COVID-related anxiety clusters in adult and parent populations, with optimal models chosen based on model fit, parsimony and clinical plausibility. Demographic, clinical and COVID-19 mitigation behaviours were compared between identified clusters using univariable statistics. Results: In 498 parents of CYP and 2640 adults, four common trajectory groups of COVID-related anxiety were identified in each cohort: persistent extreme anxiety (32% and 17%), persistent high anxiety (43% and 41%), improving high anxiety (25% and 32%) and improving moderate anxiety (11% and 10%), respectively. Few characteristics distinguished the clusters in the parent cohort. Higher and more persistent anxiety clusters in the adult cohort were associated with higher levels of respiratory comorbidities, use of immunosuppressive therapies, older age and greater self-isolation. Conclusions: COVID-19-related anxiety in the rheumatic disease community was high and persistent during the COVID-19 pandemic, with four common patterns identified. In the adult cohort, higher COVID-related anxiety was related to perceived risk factors for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.
ABSTRACT
With the introduction of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), the treatment of pediatric patients with autoimmune/inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pedAIIRD) has advanced from the "Stone Age" to modern times, resulting in much better clinical outcomes. However, everything comes with a price, and use of new bDMARDs has resulted in an increased risk of infections. Therefore, preventing infections in pedAIIRD patients is one of the top priorities. The most effective preventive measure against infection is vaccination. The first study on humoral immunity after vaccination in pediatric rheumatology was published in 1974 and on safety in 1993. For many years, data about safety and immunogenicity in pedAIIRD patients were available only for non-live vaccines and the first studies on live-attenuated vaccines in pedAIIRD patients treated with immunosuppressive therapy were available only after 2007. Even today the data are limited, especially for children treated with bDMARDs. Vaccinations with non-live vaccines are nowadays recommended, although their long-term immunogenicity and efficacy in pedAIIRD patients are still under investigation. Vaccinations with live-attenuated vaccines are not universally recommended in immunosuppressed patients. However, measles-mumps-rubella booster and varicella zoster virus vaccination can be considered under specific conditions. Additional research is needed to provide more evidence on safety and immunogenicity, especially regarding live-attenuated vaccines in immunosuppressed patients with pedAIIRD. Due to the limited number of these patients, well-designed, prospective, international studies are needed. Further challenges were presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. This mini review article reviews past and present data and discusses the future of vaccinology in pediatric rheumatology.
ABSTRACT
With the introduction of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), the treatment of pediatric patients with autoimmune/inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pedAIIRD) has advanced from the "Stone Age” to modern times, resulting in much better clinical outcomes. However, everything comes with a price, and use of new bDMARDs has resulted in an increased risk of infections. Therefore, preventing infections in pedAIIRD patients is one of the top priorities. The most effective preventive measure against infection is vaccination. The first study on humoral immunity after vaccination in pediatric rheumatology was published in 1974 and on safety in 1993. For many years, data about safety and immunogenicity in pedAIIRD patients were available only for non-live vaccines and the first studies on live-attenuated vaccines in pedAIIRD patients treated with immunosuppressive therapy were available only after 2007. Even today the data are limited, especially for children treated with bDMARDs. Vaccinations with non-live vaccines are nowadays recommended, although their long-term immunogenicity and efficacy in pedAIIRD patients are still under investigation. Vaccinations with live-attenuated vaccines are not universally recommended in immunosuppressed patients. However, measles-mumps-rubella booster and varicella zoster virus vaccination can be considered under specific conditions. Additional research is needed to provide more evidence on safety and immunogenicity, especially regarding live-attenuated vaccines in immunosuppressed patients with pedAIIRD. Due to the limited number of these patients, well-designed, prospective, international studies are needed. Further challenges were presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. This mini review article reviews past and present data and discusses the future of vaccinology in pediatric rheumatology.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims During the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, some healthcare provision shifted to remote, technology-assisted appointments (telemedicine). This study sought the views of parents/carers about telemedicine, identifying the benefits and limitations, to assist in improvement to future service provision. Methods An online survey was developed and shared via social media and direct contacts, targeted at parents of children with rheumatic and autoinflammatory conditions in Canada. Fieldwork took place during May 2021. Consent was provided during enrolment. Results A total of 157 responses were received (78% female, median age 12). The primary diagnosis for the majority was juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA;39% polyarticular, 15% oligoarticular, 8% enthesitis-related JIA, 6% psoriatic, and 9% systemic). Respondents reported in-person appointments represent a considerable time burden (87% travel more than an hour to attend;40% take a full day [or more] out of school to attend;38% of parents take a full day off work). During the pandemic, the proportion having a telemedicine appointment increased from 5% to 82%. Table 1 shows the scores (1 worst, 5 best) given by parents about their telemedicine experience. Overall, most aspects scored positively (p<.05). However, parents felt telemedicine was not as good as in-person appointments (mean 2.66, 95% CI 2.42-2.90). P153 Table 1 Mean scores for a range of aspects of telemedicine (1-worst;5-best).AspectMean (95% CI)Easy to schedule4.33 (4.14, 4.52) *On time4.07 (3.85, 4.28) *Enough time with doctor4.24 (4.02, 4.45) *As good as in-person visit2.66 (2.42, 2.90) **Easier to see doctor3.51 (3.25, 3.77) *Easy to sign-in4.25 (4.06, 4.43) *Quality of video3.87 (3.66, 4.07) *Quality of sound3.94 (3.75, 4.14) *Able to speak freely4.05 (3.85, 4.24) *Able to understand doctor4.09 (3.90, 4.28) *Quality of care provided3.78 (3.56, 4.00) *Overall telemedicine experience3.78 (3.57, 3.99) * *Positive score (p<.05). **Negative score (p<.05). The majority of respondents reported telemedicine appointments had saved them time (68%), and many said it enabled them to have an appointment (63%) and made the appointment safer (59%), and many said it saved money (44%). However, 78% felt that their consultant could not properly assess their child, 22% were concerned that the doctor could not identify changes in their child’s condition, 14% said it was hard to explain their child’s condition, and 18% of parents and 22% of CYP disliked telemedicine. Overall, 61% said they would prefer the next appointment to be in-person, while 31% were amenable to some combination of in-person and virtual care. Conclusion There are advantages to telemedicine, notably saving time and making appointments accessible, and overall parents reported satisfaction with remote appointments. However, parents continue to report the value of in-person appointments. Disclosure J. Wilson: None. W. Costello: None. S. Angevare: None. R.P. Beesley: None.