Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of diacerein versus placebo to treat knee osteoarthritis with effusion-synovitis (DICKENS).

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Effusion-synovitis is a common inflammatory phenotype of knee OA and predicts knee pain and structural degradation. Anti-inflammatory therapies, such as diacerein, may be effective for this phenotype. While diacerein is recommended for alleviating pain in OA patients, evidence for its effectiveness is inconsistent, possibly because studies have not targeted patients with an inflammatory phenotype. Therefore, we will conduct a multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled double-blind trial to determine the effect of diacerein on changes in knee pain and effusion-synovitis over 24 weeks in patients with knee OA and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined effusion-synovitis. METHODS: We will recruit 260 patients with clinical knee OA, significant knee pain, and MRI-detected effusion-synovitis in Hobart, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth, Australia. They will be randomly allocated to receive either diacerein (50mg twice daily) or identical placebo for 24 weeks. MRI of the study knee will be performed at screening and after 24 weeks of intervention. The primary outcome is improvement in knee pain at 24 weeks as assessed by a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes include improvement in volumetric (ml) and semi-quantitative (Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score, 0-3) measurements of effusion-synovitis using MRI over 24 weeks, and improvement in knee pain (VAS) at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks. Intention-to-treat analyses of primary and secondary outcomes will be performed as the primary analyses. Per protocol analyses will be performed as the secondary analyses. DISCUSSION: This study will provide high-quality evidence to determine whether diacerein improves pain, changes disease trajectory, and slows disease progression in OA patients with effusion-synovitis. If diacerein proves effective, this has the potential to significantly benefit the substantial proportion (up to 60%) of knee OA patients with an inflammatory phenotype. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12618001656224 . Registered on 08 October 2018.

A Qualitative Study Exploring Motivators and Barriers to COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Adults in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

While vaccines are a well-established method of controlling the spread of infectious diseases, vaccine hesitancy jeopardizes curbing the spread of COVID-19. Through the Vaccine Information Network (VIN), this study explored barriers and motivators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We conducted 18 focus group discussions with male and female community members, stratified by country, age group, and-for Zimbabwe only-by HIV status. Participants' median age across both countries was 40 years (interquartile range of 22-40), and most (65.9%) were female. We conceptualized the key themes within the World Health Organization's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) 3C (convenience, confidence, complacency) vaccine hesitancy model. Barriers to vaccine uptake-lack of convenience, low confidence, and high complacency-included inaccessibility of vaccines and vaccination sites, vaccine safety and development concerns, and disbelief in COVID-19's existence. Motivators to vaccine uptake-convenience, confidence, and low complacency-included accessibility of vaccination sites, user-friendly registration processes, trust in governments and vaccines, fear of dying from COVID-19, and knowing someone who had died from or become infected with COVID-19. Overall, vaccine hesitancy in South Africa and Zimbabwe was influenced by inconvenience, a lack of confidence, and high complacency around COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in inflammatory arthritis patients: serial surveys from a large longitudinal national Australian cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To determine COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rates in inflammatory arthritis patients and identify factors associated with changing vaccine hesitancy over time. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of inflammatory arthritis patients from community and public hospital outpatient rheumatology clinics enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD). Two surveys were conducted, one immediately prior to (pre-pandemic) and then approximately one year after the start of the pandemic (follow-up). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was measured at follow-up and general vaccine hesitancy was inferred pre-pandemic; these were used to identify factors associated with fixed and changing vaccine beliefs, including sources of information and broader beliefs about medication. RESULTS: Of the 594 participants who completed both surveys, 74 (12%) were COVID-19 vaccine hesitant. This was associated with pre-pandemic beliefs about medications being harmful (p< 0.001) and overused (p= 0.002), with stronger beliefs resulting in vaccine hesitancy persistent over two time points (p= 0.008, p= 0.005). For those not vaccine hesitant pre-pandemic, the development of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with a lower likelihood of seeking out vaccine information from healthcare professionals (p< 0.001). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was not associated with new influenza vaccine hesitancy (p= 0.138). CONCLUSION: In this study of vaccine beliefs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in inflammatory arthritis patients varied, depending on vaccine attitudes immediately prior to the start of the pandemic. Fixed beliefs reflected broader views about medications, while fluid beliefs were highly influenced by whether they sought out information from healthcare professionals, including rheumatologists.

Vaccination Rates, Perceptions, and Information Sources Used by People With Inflammatory Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine vaccination rates, perceptions, and information sources in people with inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: Participants enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database were invited to participate in an online questionnaire, conducted in January 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Included questions were about vaccination history, modified World Health Organization Vaccination Hesitancy Scale, views of the information sources consulted, the Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire, education, and the Single-Item Health Literacy Screener. RESULTS: Response rate was 994 of 1498 (66%). The median age of participants was 62 years, with 67% female. Self-reported adherence was 83% for the influenza vaccine. Participants generally expressed positive vaccination views, particularly regarding safety, efficacy, and access. However, only 43% knew which vaccines were recommended for them. Vaccine hesitancy was primarily attributable to uncertainty and a perceived lack of information about which vaccines were recommended. Participants consulted multiple vaccination information sources (median 3, interquartile range 2-7). General practitioners (89%) and rheumatologists (76%) were the most frequently used information sources and were most likely to yield positive views. Negative views of vaccination were most often from internet chatrooms, social media, and mainstream media. Factors of younger age, male gender, and having more concerns about the harms and overuse of medicines in general were associated with lower adherence and greater uncertainty about vaccinations, whereas education and self-reported literacy were not. CONCLUSION: Participants with inflammatory arthritis generally held positive views about vaccination, although there was considerable uncertainty as to which vaccinations were recommended for them. This study highlights the need for improved consumer information about vaccination recommendations for people with inflammatory arthritis.

Association of latitude and altitude with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19: The VIRUS registry.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) course may be affected by environmental factors. Ecological studies previously suggested a link between climatological factors and COVID-19 fatality rates. However, individual-level impact of these factors has not been thoroughly evaluated yet. AIM: To study the association of climatological factors related to patient location with unfavorable outcomes in patients. METHODS: In this observational analysis of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: COVID-19 Registry cohort, the latitudes and altitudes of hospitals were examined as a covariate for mortality within 28 d of admission and the length of hospital stay. Adjusting for baseline parameters and admission date, multivariable regression modeling was utilized. Generalized estimating equations were used to fit the models. RESULTS: Twenty-two thousand one hundred eight patients from over 20 countries were evaluated. The median age was 62 (interquartile range: 49-74) years, and 54% of the included patients were males. The median age increased with increasing latitude as well as the frequency of comorbidities. Contrarily, the percentage of comorbidities was lower in elevated altitudes. Mortality within 28 d of hospital admission was found to be 25%. The median hospital-free days among all included patients was 20 d. Despite the significant linear relationship between mortality and hospital-free days (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.39 (1.04, 1.86), P = 0.025 for mortality within 28 d of admission; aOR = -1.47 (-2.60, -0.33), P = 0.011 for hospital-free days), suggesting that adverse patient outcomes were more common in locations further away from the Equator; the results were no longer significant when adjusted for baseline differences (aOR = 1.32 (1.00, 1.74), P = 0.051 for 28-day mortality; aOR = -1.07 (-2.13, -0.01), P = 0.050 for hospital-free days). When we looked at the altitude's effect, we discovered that it demonstrated a non-linear association with mortality within 28 d of hospital admission (aOR = 0.96 (0.62, 1.47), 1.04 (0.92, 1.19), 0.49 (0.22, 0.90), and 0.51 (0.27, 0.98), for the altitude points of 75 MASL, 125 MASL, 400 MASL, and 600 MASL, in comparison to the reference altitude of 148 m.a.s.l, respectively. P = 0.001). We detected an association between latitude and 28-day mortality as well as hospital-free days in this worldwide study. When the baseline features were taken into account, however, this did not stay significant. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that differences observed in previous epidemiological studies may be due to ecological fallacy rather than implying a causal relationship at the patient level.

SARS-CoV-2 infection increases risk of acute kidney injury in a bimodal age distribution.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 develop acute kidney injury (AKI) frequently, yet gaps remain in understanding why adults seem to have higher rates compared to children. Our objectives were to evaluate the epidemiology of SARS-CoV2-related AKI across the age spectrum and determine if known risk factors such as illness severity contribute to its pattern. METHODS: Secondary analysis of ongoing prospective international cohort registry. AKI was defined by KDIGO-creatinine only criteria. Log-linear, logistic and generalized estimating equations assessed odds ratios (OR), risk differences (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AKI and mortality adjusting for sex, pre-existing comorbidities, race/ethnicity, illness severity, and clustering within centers. Sensitivity analyses assessed different baseline creatinine estimators. RESULTS: Overall, among 6874 hospitalized patients, 39.6% (n = 2719) developed AKI. There was a bimodal distribution of AKI by age with peaks in older age (≥60 years) and middle childhood (5-15 years), which persisted despite controlling for illness severity, pre-existing comorbidities, or different baseline creatinine estimators. For example, the adjusted OR of developing AKI among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 was 2.74 (95% CI 1.66-4.56) for 10-15-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds and similarly was 2.31 (95% CI 1.71-3.12) for 70-75-year-olds, while adjusted OR dropped to 1.39 (95% CI 0.97-2.00) for 40-45-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV2-related AKI is common with a bimodal age distribution that is not fully explained by known risk factors or confounders. As the pandemic turns to disproportionately impacting younger individuals, this deserves further investigation as the presence of AKI and SARS-CoV2 infection increases hospital mortality risk.

Metabolic Syndrome and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Obesity, diabetes, and hypertension are common comorbidities in patients with severe COVID-19, yet little is known about the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or death in patients with COVID-19 and metabolic syndrome. Objective: To determine whether metabolic syndrome is associated with an increased risk of ARDS and death from COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study used data from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Respiratory Illness Universal Study collected from 181 hospitals across 26 countries from February 15, 2020, to February 18, 2021. Outcomes were compared between patients with metabolic syndrome (defined as ≥3 of the following criteria: obesity, prediabetes or diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia) and a control population without metabolic syndrome. Participants included adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during the study period who had a completed discharge status. Data were analyzed from February 22 to October 5, 2021. Exposures: Exposures were SARS-CoV-2 infection, metabolic syndrome, obesity, prediabetes or diabetes, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ARDS, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and length of stay (LOS). Results: Among 46 441 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 29 040 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [17.8] years; 13 059 [45.0%] women and 15713 [54.1%] men; 6797 Black patients [23.4%], 5325 Hispanic patients [18.3%], and 16 507 White patients [57.8%]) met inclusion criteria. A total of 5069 patients (17.5%) with metabolic syndrome were compared with 23 971 control patients (82.5%) without metabolic syndrome. In adjusted analyses, metabolic syndrome was associated with increased risk of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.14-1.53]), invasive mechanical ventilation (aOR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.28-1.65]), ARDS (aOR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.12-1.66]), and mortality (aOR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31]) and prolonged hospital LOS (median [IQR], 8.0 [4.2-15.8] days vs 6.8 [3.4-13.0] days; P < .001) and ICU LOS (median [IQR], 7.0 [2.8-15.0] days vs 6.4 [2.7-13.0] days; P < .001). Each additional metabolic syndrome criterion was associated with increased risk of ARDS in an additive fashion (1 criterion: 1147 patients with ARDS [10.4%]; P = .83; 2 criteria: 1191 patients with ARDS [15.3%]; P < .001; 3 criteria: 817 patients with ARDS [19.3%]; P < .001; 4 criteria: 203 patients with ARDS [24.3%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that metabolic syndrome was associated with increased risks of ARDS and death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The association with ARDS was cumulative for each metabolic syndrome criteria present.

METABOLIC SYNDROME AND ARDS IN COVID-19

B Conclusions: b MetS, diagnosed by the clustering of obesity, prediabetes/DM, HTN, and dyslipidemia, is associated with significantly increased mortality and ARDS in a global population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. B Introduction/Hypothesis: b Little is known about metabolic syndrome (MetS) and ARDS in COVID-19. However, patients from non-US hospitals had significantly higher hospital mortality as compared with US hospitals (24.5% vs 15.7%, aOR 1.58 [CI 1.41-1.77]) with similar findings noted when patients were stratified by MetS (34.1% vs 21.3%, aOR 1.49 [CI 1.08-2.06]). [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

METHODS - A randomised controlled trial of METhotrexate to treat Hand Osteoarthritis with Synovitis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand osteoarthritis is a common and disabling problem without effective therapies. Accumulating evidence suggests the role of local inflammation in causing pain and structural progression in hand osteoarthritis, and hand osteoarthritis with synovitis is a commonly encountered clinical phenotype. Methotrexate is a well-established, low-cost, and effective treatment for inflammatory arthritis with a well-described safety profile. The aim of this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is to determine whether methotrexate reduces pain over 6 months in patients with hand osteoarthritis and synovitis. METHODS: Ninety-six participants with hand osteoarthritis and synovitis will be recruited through the Osteoarthritis Clinical Trial Network (Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, and Perth), and randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either methotrexate 20 mg or identical placebo once weekly for 6 months. The primary outcome is pain reduction (assessed by 100 mm visual analogue scale) at 6 months. The secondary outcomes include changes in physical function and quality of life assessed using Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, Short-Form-36, tender and swollen joint count, and grip strength, and structural progression assessed using progression of synovitis and bone marrow lesions from magnetic resonance imaging and radiographic progression at 6 months. Adverse events will be recorded. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat, including all participants in their randomised groups. DISCUSSION: This study will provide high-quality evidence to address whether methotrexate has an effect on reducing pain over 6 months in patients with hand osteoarthritis and synovitis, with major clinical and public health importance. While a positive trial will inform international clinical practice guidelines for the management of hand osteoarthritis, a negative trial would be highly topical and change current trends in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12617000877381. Registered 15 June 2017, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373124.

Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica might be at a high risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes due to the treatments used, the potential organ damage cause by primary systemic vasculitis, and the demographic factors associated with these conditions. We therefore aimed to investigate factors associated with COVID-19 outcomes in patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and April 12, 2021, who had a history of primary systemic vasculitis (antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody [ANCA]-associated vasculitis, giant cell arteritis, Behçet's syndrome, or other vasculitis) or polymyalgia rheumatica, and were reported to the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry were included. To assess COVID-19 outcomes in patients, we used an ordinal COVID-19 severity scale, defined as: (1) no hospitalisation; (2) hospitalisation without supplemental oxygen; (3) hospitalisation with any supplemental oxygen or ventilation; or (4) death. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs), adjusting for age, sex, time period, number of comorbidities, smoking status, obesity, glucocorticoid use, disease activity, region, and medication category. Analyses were also stratified by type of rheumatic disease. FINDINGS: Of 1202 eligible patients identified in the registry, 733 (61·0%) were women and 469 (39·0%) were men, and their mean age was 63·8 years (SD 17·1). A total of 374 (31·1%) patients had polymyalgia rheumatica, 353 (29·4%) had ANCA-associated vasculitis, 183 (15·2%) had giant cell arteritis, 112 (9·3%) had Behçet's syndrome, and 180 (15·0%) had other vasculitis. Of 1020 (84·9%) patients with outcome data, 512 (50·2%) were not hospitalised, 114 (11·2%) were hospitalised and did not receive supplemental oxygen, 239 (23·4%) were hospitalised and received ventilation or supplemental oxygen, and 155 (15·2%) died. A higher odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes were observed in patients who were older (per each additional decade of life OR 1·44 [95% CI 1·31-1·57]), were male compared with female (1·38 [1·05-1·80]), had more comorbidities (per each additional comorbidity 1·39 [1·23-1·58]), were taking 10 mg/day or more of prednisolone compared with none (2·14 [1·50-3·04]), or had moderate, or high or severe disease activity compared with those who had disease remission or low disease activity (2·12 [1·49-3·02]). Risk factors varied among different disease subtypes. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with primary systemic vasculitis and polymyalgia rheumatica, severe COVID-19 outcomes were associated with variable and largely unmodifiable risk factors, such as age, sex, and number of comorbidities, as well as treatments, including high-dose glucocorticoids. Our results could be used to inform mitigation strategies for patients with these diseases. FUNDING: American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

Immediate effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient health, health-care use, and behaviours: results from an international survey of people with rheumatic diseases.

BACKGROUND: The impact and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease are unclear. We developed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease worldwide. METHODS: Survey questions were developed by key stakeholder groups and disseminated worldwide through social media, websites, and patient support organisations. Questions included demographics, rheumatic disease diagnosis, COVID-19 diagnosis, adoption of protective behaviours to mitigate COVID-19 exposure, medication access and changes, health-care access and communication with rheumatologists, and changes in employment or schooling. Adults age 18 years and older with inflammatory or autoimmune rheumatic diseases were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We excluded participants reporting only non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as fibromyalgia or osteoarthritis. FINDINGS: 12 117 responses to the survey were received between April 3 and May 8, 2020, and of these, 10 407 respondents had included appropriate age data. We included complete responses from 9300 adults with rheumatic disease (mean age 46·1 years; 8375 [90·1%] women, 893 [9·6%] men, and 32 [0·3%] participants who identified as non-binary). 6273 (67·5%) of respondents identified as White, 1565 (16·8%) as Latin American, 198 (2·1%) as Black, 190 (2·0%) as Asian, and 42 (0·5%) as Native American or Aboriginal or First Nation. The most common rheumatic disease diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis (3636 [39·1%] of 9300), systemic lupus erythematosus (2882 [31·0%]), and Sjögren's syndrome (1290 [13·9%]). Most respondents (6921 [82·0%] of 8441) continued their antirheumatic medications as prescribed. Almost all (9266 [99·7%] of 9297) respondents adopted protective behaviours to limit SARS-CoV-2 exposure. A change in employment status occurred in 2524 (27·1%) of 9300) of respondents, with a 13·6% decrease in the number in full-time employment (from 4066 to 3514). INTERPRETATION: People with rheumatic disease maintained therapy and followed public health advice to mitigate the risks of COVID-19. Substantial employment status changes occurred, with potential implications for health-care access, medication affordability, mental health, and rheumatic disease activity. FUNDING: American College of Rheumatology.

Early experience of COVID-19 vaccination in adults with systemic rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey.

BACKGROUND: We describe the early experiences of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: From 2 April to 30 April 2021, we conducted an online, international survey of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination. We collected patient-reported data on clinician communication, beliefs and intent about discontinuing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around the time of vaccination, and patient-reported adverse events after vaccination. RESULTS: We analysed 2860 adults with systemic rheumatic diseases who received COVID-19 vaccination (mean age 55.3 years, 86.7% female, 86.3% white). Types of COVID-19 vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (53.2%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (22.6%), Moderna (21.3%), Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (1.7%) and others (1.2%). The most common rheumatic disease was rheumatoid arthritis (42.3%), and 81.2% of respondents were on a DMARD. The majority (81.9%) reported communicating with clinicians about vaccination. Most (66.9%) were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy, although many (44.3%) were concerned about rheumatic disease flares. After vaccination, the most reported patient-reported adverse events were fatigue/somnolence (33.4%), headache (27.7%), muscle/joint pains (22.8%) and fever/chills (19.9%). Rheumatic disease flares that required medication changes occurred in 4.6%. CONCLUSION: Among adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination, patient-reported adverse events were typical of those reported in the general population. Most patients were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy. The relatively low frequency of rheumatic disease flare requiring medications was reassuring.

Risk Factors for Critical Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Mortality in Hospitalized Young Adults: An Analysis of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) Coronavirus Disease 2019 Registry.

IMPORTANCE: Even with its proclivity for older age, coronavirus disease 2019 has been shown to affect all age groups. However, there remains a lack of research focused primarily on the young adult population. OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiology and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and identify the risk factors associated with critical illness and mortality in hospitalized young adults. DESIGN SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study registry. Patients 18-40 years old, hospitalized from coronavirus disease 2019 from March 2020 to April 2021, were included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Critical illness was defined as a composite of mortality and 21 predefined interventions and complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations with critical illness and mortality. RESULTS: Data from 4,005 patients (152 centers, 19 countries, 18.6% non-U.S. patients) were analyzed. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 27-37 yr); 51% were female, 29.4% Hispanic, and 42.9% had obesity. Most patients (63.2%) had comorbidities, the most common being hypertension (14.5%) and diabetes (13.7%). Hospital and ICU mortality were 3.2% (129/4,005) and 8.3% (109/1,313), respectively. Critical illness occurred in 25% (n = 996), and 34.3% (n = 1,376) were admitted to the ICU. Older age (p = 0.03), male sex (adjusted odds ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.2-2.6]), and obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4]) were associated with hospital mortality. In addition to the above factors, the presence of any comorbidity was associated with critical illness from coronavirus disease 2019. Multiple sensitivity analyses, including analysis with U.S. patients only and patients admitted to high-volume sites, showed similar risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized young adults, obese males with comorbidities are at higher risk of developing critical illness or dying from coronavirus disease 2019.

The EPIPHA-KNEE trial: Explaining Pain to target unhelpful pain beliefs to Increase PHysical Activity in KNEE osteoarthritis - a protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with clinical- and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite well-established benefits of physical activity for knee osteoarthritis (OA), nine of ten people with knee OA are inactive. People with knee OA who are inactive often believe that physical activity is dangerous, fearing that it will further damage their joint(s). Such unhelpful beliefs can negatively influence physical activity levels. We aim to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of integrating physiotherapist-delivered pain science education (PSE), an evidence-based conceptual change intervention targeting unhelpful pain beliefs by increasing pain knowledge, with an individualised walking, strengthening, and general education program. METHODS: Two-arm, parallel-design, multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 198 people aged ≥50 years with painful knee OA who do not meet physical activity guideline recommendations or walk regularly for exercise. Both groups receive an individualised physiotherapist-led walking, strengthening, and OA/activity education program via 4x weekly in-person treatment sessions, followed by 4 weeks of at-home activities (weekly check-in via telehealth), with follow-up sessions at 3 months (telehealth) and 5 and 9 months (in-person). The EPIPHA-KNEE group also receives contemporary PSE about OA/pain and activity, embedded into all aspects of the intervention. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes are physical activity level (step count; wrist-based accelerometry) and self-reported knee symptoms (WOMAC Total score) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, pain intensity, global rating of change, self-efficacy, pain catastrophising, depression, anxiety, stress, fear of movement, knee awareness, OA/activity conceptualisation, and self-regulated learning ability. Additional measures include adherence, adverse events, blinding success, COVID-19 impact on activity, intention to exercise, treatment expectancy/perceived credibility, implicit movement/environmental bias, implicit motor imagery, two-point discrimination, and pain sensitivity to activity. Cost-utility analysis of the EPIPHA-KNEE intervention will be undertaken, in addition to evaluation of cost-effectiveness in the context of primary trial outcomes. DISCUSSION: We will determine whether the integration of PSE into an individualised OA education, walking, and strengthening program is more effective than receiving the individualised program alone. Findings will inform the development and implementation of future delivery of PSE as part of best practice for people with knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12620001041943 (13/10/2020).

Outcomes of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Receiving Organ Support Therapies: The International Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support (n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation (n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy (n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.

Patient satisfaction and acceptability with telehealth at specialist medical outpatient clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient clinics were shifted rapidly to telehealth in Australia during the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, drastically altering patient care and experience. AIMS: To investigate patient satisfaction and acceptability of telehealth consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Prospective observation study conducted in two hospital rheumatology outpatient departments (OPD) undertaking telehealth consultations during COVID-19. A modified version of a validated telehealth evaluation survey was posted to all patients attending the telehealth OPD rheumatology clinics, including balanced 5-point Likert scales and free-text responses. Cluster analysis was applied to the Likert-scale questions, alongside thematic analysis of free-text responses. RESULTS: There were 128 respondents (29% response rate), of which 69.5% were women and the majority (87.5%) was aged 50 years or older. All telehealth consultations were conducted by telephone. Nearly one-fifth of patients indicated consistent dissatisfaction with telehealth across the range of questions. These patients were older, reported lower educational qualifications and lower health literacy scores and lacked access to the Internet. While many patients found this mode of consultation to be convenient, patients expressed concerns regarding absence of physical examination. A recurrent theme was a desire for a mixed-model clinic in the future, with flexibility of having both telehealth and face-to-face consultations. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers unique insights into patients' experiences with telehealth, which until the current global pandemic, has been an uncommon mode of consultation delivery in urban areas. This study suggests when defining the place of telehealth in future healthcare delivery, patient perspective and careful patient selection will be key. Disease progression, language and cognitive ability, health literacy, technology access and patient and clinician preference are important considerations when deciding how effectively to embed and integrate telehealth into consultations.

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and specific consumables and this procedure is poorly accepted as a screening method In contrast, saliva sampling can be self-administered. METHODS: In order to compare saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, we designed a meta-analysis searching in PubMed up to December 29th, 2020 with the key words "(SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR COVID19) AND (salivary OR saliva OR oral fluid)) NOT (review[Publication Type]) NOT (PrePrint[Publication Type])" applying the following criteria: records published in peer reviewed scientific journals, in English, with at least 15 nasopharyngeal/orapharyngeal swabs and saliva paired samples tested by RT-PCR, studies with available raw data including numbers of positive and negative tests with the two sampling methods. For all studies, concordance and sensitivity were calculated and then pooled in a random-effects model. FINDINGS: A total of 377 studies were retrieved, of which 50 were eligible, reporting on 16,473 pairs of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal and saliva samples. Meta-analysis showed high concordance, 92.5% (95%CI: 89.5-94.7), across studies and pooled sensitivities of 86.5% (95%CI: 83.4-89.1) and 92.0% (95%CI: 89.1-94.2) from saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was 72.0% for saliva and 85.0% for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. INTERPRETATION: Our meta-analysis strongly suggests that saliva could be used for frequent testing of COVID-19 patients and "en masse" screening of populations.