Balancing COVID-19 Risk With Physical and Mental Wellness: Perspectives of Patients With Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases Throughout the Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at greater risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization, increasing the stress and uncertainty already associated with unpredictable conditions. These may be heightened for patients with ARDs from underrepresented minority backgrounds. This study aimed to explore patient experiences and ARD-related challenges during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: Between December 2020 and May 2021, 60-minute semistructured interviews were conducted with English- and Spanish-speaking adults, aged 18 years or older with self-reported diagnosis of ARD, via phone or videoconferencing using an interview guide on living with an ARD during the pandemic. Analysis combined methods of phenomenology and content analysis through three steps: 1) summarizing interviews, 2) iteratively refining units of meaning, and 3) axial and selective coding to determine cross-cutting themes. Study procedures were conducted by a multidisciplinary team, a majority also diagnosed with ARDs. RESULTS: The research team interviewed 22 patients (39.8 ± 15.7 years old; 82.8% female; 31.8% Hispanic or Latino/a/x) with ARDs. Themes included 1) information access and understanding, 2) problem solving access to health care, 3) balancing risks, and 4) mental health implications. Within these themes, patients from underrepresented minority backgrounds faced unique challenges. CONCLUSION: Patients with ARDs require direct and timely communication about their risk of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and require increased support for psychosocial and ARD-related implications of the pandemic. Health care systems must consider ways to support patients who are balancing chronic disease management with risk reduction for contracting emerging COVID-19 variants.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients Living With Vasculitis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the concerns and health-related behaviors in patients with vasculitis during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in North America. METHODS: Patients with vasculitis in North America were invited to complete an online survey through the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network in collaboration with the Vasculitis Foundation and the Relapsing Polychondritis Foundation. Questions focused on concerns and behaviors related to doctors' visits, tests, medication, and telehealth use. Factors affecting their concern and health-related behaviors were determined. RESULTS: Data from 662 patients were included: 90% of patients were White, 78% were women, 83% expressed moderate or high levels of concern about COVID-19, and 87% reported that their vasculitis moderately or extremely affected their level of concern. Older age, female sex, lung disease, and immunosuppression were associated with greater concern. Doctors' visits, laboratory tests, and other tests were avoided by 66%, 46%, and 40% of patients, respectively. Younger age, urban location, higher income, higher concern levels, and prednisone use (>10 mg/day) were associated with greater likelihood of avoiding visits or tests. Ten percent of patients on immunosuppressive therapy stopped their medication. Twenty-nine percent patients on rituximab avoided an infusion. Forty-four percent of patients had telehealth visits; more visits were reported for younger patients, for patients on glucocorticoids, and in Canada versus the United States. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with vasculitis have high levels of concern and exhibit potentially harmful health-related behaviors. Health care use varies across different demographic groups and geographic regions. Specific strategies are warranted to facilitate engagement of these patients with the health care system during the pandemic.

Telemedicine in rheumatology care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a sudden uptake of telemedicine in rheumatology. We analyzed the recent published literature on telemedicine for the diagnosis and management of inflammatory, non-inflammatory and/or autoimmune rheumatic diseases. METHODS: We performed a registered systematic search (CRD42020202063) for interventional or observational studies published between August 2015 and January 2022. We included studies of telemedicine that reported outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, disease activity, quality of life) in ten or more people with rheumatic disease. Reviewers screened manuscripts, extracted data, and assessed bias. RESULTS: Of the 2,988 potentially eligible studies, 36 reports were included: 27 observational studies, 7 randomized clinical trials, and 2 controlled clinical trials. Studies focused on general rheumatology (n = 18), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 9), gout (n = 3), osteoarthritis (n = 2), unspecified inflammatory arthritis (n = 1), osteoporosis (n = 2), and systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 1). Patient satisfaction with telemedicine was the most common reported outcome (n = 23) with majority of studies demonstrating high levels of satisfaction. Among interventional studies, the effect of telemedicine on the primary outcomes varied, with most finding that telemedicine was as good as usual / in-person care for disease activity control, patient satisfaction, total societal costs, and other patient reported outcomes. Effectiveness and feasibility were high across studies, though most demonstrated a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not feasible given the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome instruments utilized. CONCLUSION: Although the number of studies to date is low, telemedicine may be an effective mode to deliver care for people with rheumatic diseases. Most studies demonstrated limitations due to study design and risk of bias. Randomized clinical studies are needed to determine best uses of telemedicine for the diagnosis and management of rheumatic conditions.

Environmental and societal factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic disease: an observational study.

Background: Differences in the distribution of individual-level clinical risk factors across regions do not fully explain the observed global disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to investigate the associations between environmental and societal factors and country-level variations in mortality attributed to COVID-19 among people with rheumatic disease globally. Methods: In this observational study, we derived individual-level data on adults (aged 18-99 years) with rheumatic disease and a confirmed status of their highest COVID-19 severity level from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) registry, collected between March 12, 2020, and Aug 27, 2021. Environmental and societal factors were obtained from publicly available sources. The primary endpoint was mortality attributed to COVID-19. We used a multivariable logistic regression to evaluate independent associations between environmental and societal factors and death, after controlling for individual-level risk factors. We used a series of nested mixed-effects models to establish whether environmental and societal factors sufficiently explained country-level variations in death. Findings: 14 044 patients from 23 countries were included in the analyses. 10 178 (72·5%) individuals were female and 3866 (27·5%) were male, with a mean age of 54·4 years (SD 15·6). Air pollution (odds ratio 1·10 per 10 µg/m3 [95% CI 1·01-1·17]; p=0·0105), proportion of the population aged 65 years or older (1·19 per 1% increase [1·10-1·30]; p<0·0001), and population mobility (1·03 per 1% increase in number of visits to grocery and pharmacy stores [1·02-1·05]; p<0·0001 and 1·02 per 1% increase in number of visits to workplaces [1·00-1·03]; p=0·032) were independently associated with higher odds of mortality. Number of hospital beds (0·94 per 1-unit increase per 1000 people [0·88-1·00]; p=0·046), human development index (0·65 per 0·1-unit increase [0·44-0·96]; p=0·032), government response stringency (0·83 per 10-unit increase in containment index [0·74-0·93]; p=0·0018), as well as follow-up time (0·78 per month [0·69-0·88]; p<0·0001) were independently associated with lower odds of mortality. These factors sufficiently explained country-level variations in death attributable to COVID-19 (intraclass correlation coefficient 1·2% [0·1-9·5]; p=0·14). Interpretation: Our findings highlight the importance of environmental and societal factors as potential explanations of the observed regional disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among people with rheumatic disease and lay foundation for a new research agenda to address these disparities. Funding: American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

Satisfaction with modes of telemedicine delivery during COVID-19: A randomized, single-blind, parallel group, noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about satisfaction with different modes of telemedicine delivery. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient satisfaction with phone-only was noninferior to video visits. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group, randomized (1:1), single-blind, noninferiority trial in multispecialty clinics at a tertiary academic medical center. Adults age ≥ 60 years or with Medicare/Medicaid insurance were eligible. Primary outcome was visit satisfaction rate (9 or 10 on a 0-10 satisfaction scale). Noninferiority was determined if satisfaction with phone-only (intervention) versus video visits (comparator) was no worse by a -15% prespecified noninferiority margin. We performed modified intent-to-treat (mITT) and per protocol analyses, after adjusting for age and insurance. RESULTS: 200 participants, 43% Black, 68% women completed surveys. Visit satisfaction rates were high. In the mITT analysis, phone-only visits were noninferior by an adjusted difference of 3.2% (95% CI, -7.6% to 14%). In the per protocol analysis, phone-only were noninferior by an adjusted difference of -4.1% (95% CI, -14.8% to 6.6%). The proportion of participants who indicated they preferred the same type of telemedicine visit as their next clinic visit were similar (30.2% vs 27.9% video vs phone-only, p = 0.78) and a majority said their medical concerns were addressed and would recommend a telemedicine visit. CONCLUSIONS: Among a group of diverse, established older or underserved patients, the satisfaction rate for phone-only was noninferior to video visits. These findings could impact practice and policies governing telemedicine.

Experience with telemedicine among rheumatology clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international survey.

Objective: The aim was to assess rheumatology clinicians' perceptions of telemedicine and their experiences before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey and collected responses from rheumatology clinicians worldwide, between November 2020 and February 2021, regarding use and perceptions of telemedicine in rheumatology. We summarized data with descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis for free-text responses. Results: The survey was completed by 349 rheumatology clinicians from 49 countries; 59% were female and about two-thirds were in the 30-50 years age group. Academic affiliations were held by 55% of participants, and 44% were from North America. Before the pandemic, 24% of participants had experience with telemedicine, whereas about three-quarters used telemedicine for the first time during the pandemic. Overall, 56% thought they provided less adequate care with telemedicine. More than half of clinicians felt that telemedicine was adequate for evaluating crystalline arthritis, inflammatory arthritis and lupus flares. Telemedicine was felt to be inadequate for flares of myositis, vasculitis and scleroderma. Technical problems were reported in 29% of telemedicine encounters and were most commonly related to patient-encountered difficulties. Conclusion: Most rheumatology clinicians used telemedicine for the first time during the pandemic. The quality of care provided was thought to be inferior to that provided in person for specific clinical situations. Additional efforts are needed to address barriers to effective telemedicine, such as patient-related technology issues, challenges with building rapport and performing a physical examination, and to define the appropriate scope of clinical scenarios conducive to telemedicine.

Healthcare disparities in telemedicine for rheumatology care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We summarize the recent literature published in the last 2 years on healthcare disparities observed in the delivery of rheumatology care by telemedicine. We highlight recent research dissecting the underpinnings of healthcare disparities and identify potentially modifiable contributing factors. RECENT FINDINGS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major impacts on care delivery and has led to a pronounced increase in telemedicine use in rheumatology practice. Telemedicine services are disproportionately underutilized by racial/ethnic minority groups and among patients with lower socioeconomic status. Disparities in telemedicine access and use among vulnerable populations threatens to exacerbate existing outcome inequalities affecting people with rheumatic disease. SUMMARY: Telemedicine has the potential to expand rheumatology services by reaching traditionally underserved communities. However, some areas lack the infrastructure and technology to engage in telemedicine. Addressing health equity and the digital divide may help foster more inclusive telemedicine care.

Medication Interruptions and Subsequent Disease Flares During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Online Study of Patients With Rheumatic Disease.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess trends in anxiety and interruptions in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use among patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate whether DMARD interruptions were associated with disease flares. METHODS: ArthritisPower, the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network, and other patient organizations invited members to join a 52-week longitudinal study, with baseline surveys completed March 29 to June 30, 2020, with follow-up through May 2021. Logistic regression incorporating generalized estimating equations evaluated associations between interruptions in DMARD use and self-reported disease flares at the next survey, adjusting for demographic characteristics, medications, disease, and calendar time. RESULTS: Among 2,424 patients completing a median of 5 follow-up surveys, the mean age was 57 years, 87% were female, and the most common conditions were rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, and psoriatic arthritis. Average Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety T scores decreased from April 2020 (58.7) to May 2021 (53.7) (P < 0.001 for trend). Interruptions in DMARD use decreased from April (11.2%) to December 2020 (7.5%) (P < 0.001) but increased through May 2021 (14.0%) (P < 0.001). Interruptions in DMARD use were associated with a significant increase in severe flares (rated ≥6 of 10) at the next survey (12.9% versus 8.0% [odds ratio (OR) 1.71 (95% confidence interval [95% CI 1.23, 2.36]) although not any flare (OR 1.18 [95% CI 0.89, 1.58])]. CONCLUSION: Anxiety and interruptions in DMARD use initially decreased over time, but DMARD interruptions increased during 2021, possibly related to an increase in COVID-19 cases or vaccine availability. Interruptions in DMARD use were associated with increased rates of severe disease flares, highlighting the importance of avoiding unnecessary DMARD interruptions.

The Development of the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Learning Collaborative for Improving Patient-Reported Outcome Collection and Patient-Centered Communication in Adult Rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an integral part of treat-to-target approaches in managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In clinical practice, however, routine collection, documentation, and discussion of PROs with patients are highly variable. The RISE LC (Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Learning Collaborative) was established to develop and share best practices in PRO collection and use across adult rheumatology practices in the United States METHODS: The goals of the RISE LC were developed through site surveys and in-person meetings. Participants completed a baseline survey on PRO collection and use in their practices. RISE LC learning sessions focused on improving communication around PROs with patients and enhancing shared decision-making in treatment plans. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the RISE LC pivoted to adapt PRO tools for telehealth. RESULTS: At baseline, all responding sites (n = 15) had established workflows for collecting PROs. Most sites used paper forms alone. PRO documentation in electronic health records was variable, with only half of the sites using structured data fields. To standardize and improve the use of PROs, participants iteratively developed a Clinical Disease Activity Index-based RA Disease Activity Communication Tool to solicit treatment goals and improve shared decision-making across sites. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated developing a tool to gauge PROs via telehealth. CONCLUSION: The RISE LC is a continuous, structured method for implementing strategies to improve PRO collection and use in rheumatological care, initially adapting from the Learning Collaborative model and extending to include features of a learning network. Future directions include measuring the impact of standardized PRO collection and discussion on shared decision-making and RA outcomes.

Disruptions in Rheumatology Care and the Rise of Telehealth in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Community Practice-Based Network.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on community-based rheumatology care and the use of telehealth is unclear. We undertook this study to investigate the impact of the pandemic on rheumatology care delivery in a large community practice-based network. METHODS: Using a community practice-based rheumatologist network, we examined trends in in-person versus telehealth visits versus canceled visits in 3 time periods: pre-COVID-19, COVID-19 transition (6 weeks beginning March 23, 2020), and post-COVID-19 transition (May-August). In the transition period, we compared patients who received in-person care versus telehealth visits versus those who cancelled all visits. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with canceled or telehealth visits. RESULTS: Pre-COVID-19, there were 7,075 visits/week among 60,002 unique rheumatology patients cared for by ~300 providers practicing in 92 offices. This number decreased substantially (24.6% reduction) during the COVID-19 transition period for in-person visits but rebounded to pre-COVID-19 levels during the post-COVID-19 transition. There were almost no telehealth visits pre-COVID-19, but telehealth increased substantially during the COVID-19 transition (41.4% of all follow-up visits) and slightly decreased during the post-COVID-19 transition (27.7% of visits). Older age, female sex, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, lower socioeconomic status, and rural residence were associated with a greater likelihood of canceling visits. Most factors were also associated with a lower likelihood of having telehealth versus in-office visits. Patients living further from the rheumatologists' office were more likely to use telehealth. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 led to large disruptions in rheumatology care; these disruptions were only partially offset by increases in telehealth use and disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities and patients with lower socioeconomic status. During the COVID-19 era, telehealth continues to be an important part of rheumatology practice, but disparities in access to care exist for some vulnerable groups.

Social Distancing, Health Care Disruptions, Telemedicine Use, and Treatment Interruption During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Patients With or Without Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare concerns, social distancing, health care disruptions, and telemedicine use in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) and non-ARD and to evaluate factors associated with immunomodulatory medication interruptions. METHODS: Patients in a multistate community rheumatology practice network completed surveys from April 2020 to May 2020. Adults with common ARD (rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus) or non-ARD (gout, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis) were evaluated. Concerns about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), social distancing, health care disruptions, and telemedicine use were compared in patients with ARD versus non-ARD, adjusting for demographics, rural residence, and zipcode-based measures of socioeconomic status and COVID-19 activity. Factors associated with medication interruptions were assessed in patients with ARD. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 2319/36 193 (6.4%) patients with non-ARD and 6885/64 303 (10.7%) with ARD. Concerns about COVID-19 and social distancing behaviors were similar in both groups, although patients receiving a biologic or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor reported greater concerns and were more likely to avoid friends/family, stores, or leaving the house. Patients with ARD were less likely to avoid office visits (45.2% vs. 51.0%, odds ratio [OR] 0.79 [0.70-0.89]) with similar telemedicine use. Immunomodulatory medications were stopped in 9.7% of patients with ARD, usually (86.9%) without a physician recommendation. Compared with patients with an office visit, the likelihood of stopping medication was higher for patients with a telemedicine visit (OR 1.54 [1.19-1.99]) but highest for patients with no visits (OR 2.26 [1.79-2.86]). CONCLUSION: Patients with ARD and non-ARD reported similar concerns about COVID-19 and similar social distancing behaviors. Missed office visits were strongly associated with interruptions in immunomodulatory medication.

Concerns, Healthcare Use, and Treatment Interruptions in Patients With Common Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess concerns and healthcare-related behaviors of patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Adults from the United States with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from the ArthritisPower Patient-Powered Research Network and CreakyJoints patient community completed surveys. Concerns and behaviors were compared among patients with different autoimmune conditions, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use, and geographic measures of urban status, income, education, and COVID-19 activity. RESULTS: Among 1517 participants (925 RA, 299 PsA, 185 AS, 108 SLE), mean age was 55.1 years, 88.3% were female, and 89.5% were White. COVID-19 concerns were similar across the country and were higher in biologic users (P < 0.001). Avoidance of doctor's office visits (56.6%) or laboratory testing (42.3%) and use of telehealth (29.5%) were more common in urban areas. Among participants receiving a DMARD without COVID-19 or other respiratory illness, 14.9% stopped a DMARD, with 78.7% of DMARD interruptions not recommended by a physician. DMARD stopping was more common in participants with lower socioeconomic status (SES) and in participants who avoided an office visit (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04-2.04) or reported lack of telehealth availability OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.25-4.08). CONCLUSION: In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with RA, PsA, AS, and SLE frequently avoided office visits and laboratory testing. DMARD interruptions commonly occurred without the advice of a physician and were associated with SES, office visits, and telehealth availability, highlighting the need for adequate healthcare access and attention to vulnerable populations during the pandemic.

Antirheumatic Disease Therapies for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Antirheumatic disease therapies have been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its complications. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to describe the current evidence. METHODS: A search of published and preprint databases in all languages was performed. Included studies described ≥1 relevant clinical outcome for ≥5 patients who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and were treated with antirheumatic disease therapy between January 1, 2019 and May 29, 2020. Pairs of reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A meta-analysis of effect sizes using random-effects models was performed when possible. RESULTS: The search identified 3,935 articles, of which 45 were included (4 randomized controlled trials, 29 cohort studies, and 12 case series). All studies evaluated hospitalized patients, and 29 of the 45 studies had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. In a meta-analysis of 3 cohort studies with a low risk of bias, hydroxychloroquine use was not significantly associated with mortality (pooled hazard ratio [HR] 1.41 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.83, 2.42]). In a meta-analysis of 2 cohort studies with some concerns/higher risk of bias, anakinra use was associated with lower mortality (pooled HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.12, 0.52]). Evidence was inconclusive with regard to other antirheumatic disease therapies, and the majority of other studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with benefit or harm regarding COVID-19 mortality. The evidence supporting the effect of other antirheumatic disease therapies in COVID-19 is currently inconclusive.

Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic diseases remain poorly understood. The aim was to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation status in people with rheumatic disease. METHODS: Case series of individuals with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry: 24 March 2020 to 20 April 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs of hospitalisation. Age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic disease diagnosis, comorbidities and rheumatic disease medications taken immediately prior to infection were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 600 cases from 40 countries were included. Nearly half of the cases were hospitalised (277, 46%) and 55 (9%) died. In multivariable-adjusted models, prednisone dose ≥10 mg/day was associated with higher odds of hospitalisation (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.96). Use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) alone or in combination with biologics/Janus Kinase inhibitors was not associated with hospitalisation (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.17 and OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.46, respectively). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use was not associated with hospitalisation status (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF) use was associated with a reduced odds of hospitalisation (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.81), while no association with antimalarial use (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.57) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: We found that glucocorticoid exposure of ≥10 mg/day is associated with a higher odds of hospitalisation and anti-TNF with a decreased odds of hospitalisation in patients with rheumatic disease. Neither exposure to DMARDs nor NSAIDs were associated with increased odds of hospitalisation.