Global Perspective on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Rheumatology and Health Equity.

Although the public health emergency associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has ended, challenges remain, especially for individuals with rheumatic diseases. We aimed to assess the historical and ongoing effects of COVID-19 on people with rheumatic diseases and rheumatology practices globally, with specific attention to vulnerable communities and lessons learned. We reviewed literature from several countries and regions, including Africa, Australia and New Zealand, China, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. We summarize literature that not only examines the impact of the pandemic on people with rheumatic diseases, but also research that reports the lasting changes to rheumatology patient care and practice, and on health service use. Across countries, challenges faced by people with rheumatic diseases during the pandemic included disruptions in healthcare and medication supply shortages. These challenges were associated with worse disease and mental health outcomes in some studies, particularly among those who had social vulnerabilities defined by socioeconomic, race, or rurality. Moreover, rheumatology practice was impacted in all regions, with the uptake of telemedicine and changes in healthcare utilization. While many regions developed rapid guidelines to disseminate scientific information, misinformation and disinformation remained widespread. Finally, vaccine uptake among people with rheumatic diseases has been uneven across the world. As the acute phase of the pandemic wanes, ongoing efforts are needed to improve healthcare access, stabilize rheumatology drug supplies, improve public health communication, and implement evidence-based vaccination practices to reduce COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among people with rheumatic diseases.

Prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration, defined as lasting 28 days or longer, among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: We analysed data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey (2 April 2021-15 October 2021) to identify people with SARDs reporting test-confirmed COVID-19. Participants reported COVID-19 severity and symptom duration, sociodemographics and clinical characteristics. We reported the proportion experiencing prolonged symptom duration and investigated associations with baseline characteristics using logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 441 respondents with SARDs and COVID-19 (mean age 48.2 years, 83.7% female, 39.5% rheumatoid arthritis). The median COVID-19 symptom duration was 15 days (IQR 7, 25). Overall, 107 (24.2%) respondents had prolonged symptom duration (≥28 days); 42/429 (9.8%) reported symptoms lasting ≥90 days. Factors associated with higher odds of prolonged symptom duration included: hospitalisation for COVID-19 vs not hospitalised and mild acute symptoms (age-adjusted OR (aOR) 6.49, 95% CI 3.03 to 14.1), comorbidity count (aOR 1.11 per comorbidity, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21) and osteoarthritis (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.27). COVID-19 onset in 2021 vs June 2020 or earlier was associated with lower odds of prolonged symptom duration (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81). CONCLUSION: Most people with SARDs had complete symptom resolution by day 15 after COVID-19 onset. However, about 1 in 4 experienced COVID-19 symptom duration 28 days or longer; 1 in 10 experienced symptoms 90 days or longer. Future studies are needed to investigate the possible relationships between immunomodulating medications, SARD type/flare, vaccine doses and novel viral variants with prolonged COVID-19 symptoms and other postacute sequelae of COVID-19 among people with SARDs.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Outcomes in Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID-19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel-Haenszel formula with random effects models. RESULTS: Of the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta-analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16-2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08-2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID-19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD. CONCLUSION: Patients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and an increased mortality rate.

Knowledge and Impact of COVID-19 on Middle-Aged and Older People Living with HIV in Lima, Peru.

COVID-19 has had an unprecedented worldwide impact, and Peru has had one of the highest COVID-19 case rates despite implementation of an early strict nationwide quarantine. Repercussions on Peru's healthcare system may impact vulnerable populations, particularly people with HIV (PWH). We explored knowledge of COVID-19 and the socioeconomic and health impact of the pandemic among middle-aged and older PWH. A cross-sectional telephone survey was administered to 156 PWH age ≥40 years receiving care in one of two large HIV clinics in Lima, Peru. The majority of PWH (age 52 ± 7.7 years, 41% female, 65% completed secondary school or less) were knowledgeable regarding COVID-19 symptoms and prevention methods. Nearly half of those employed prior to the pandemic reported job loss. Female sex (unadjusted prevalence ratio [PR] 1.85 [95%CI 1.27-2.69]), low educational level (PR 1.62 [1.06-2.48]) and informal work (PR 1.58 [1.06-2.36]) were risk factors for unemployment but not in adjusted models. Increased anxiety was reported in 64% and stress in 77%. COVID-19 has had a substantial socioeconomic and mental health impact on PWH living in Lima, Peru, particularly those with lower educational levels and informal workers. Efforts are needed to ensure continued medical care and socioeconomic support of PWH in Peru.

HIV care using differentiated service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide cohort study in the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

INTRODUCTION: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest provider of HIV care in the United States. Changes in healthcare delivery became necessary with the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared HIV healthcare delivery during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to a prior similar calendar period. METHODS: We included 27,674 people with HIV (PWH) enrolled in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study prior to 1 March 2019, with ≥1 healthcare encounter from 1 March 2019 to 29 February 2020 (2019) and/or 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 (2020). We counted monthly general medicine/infectious disease (GM/ID) clinic visits and HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) tests. We determined the percentage with ≥1 clinic visit (in-person vs. telephone/video [virtual]) and ≥1 VL test (detectable vs. suppressed) for 2019 and 2020. Using pharmacy records, we summarized antiretroviral (ARV) medication refill length (<90 vs. ≥90 days) and monthly ARV coverage. RESULTS: Most patients had ≥1 GM/ID visit in 2019 (96%) and 2020 (95%). For 2019, 27% of visits were virtual compared to 64% in 2020. In 2019, 82% had VL measured compared to 74% in 2020. Of those with VL measured, 92% and 91% had suppressed VL in 2019 and 2020. ARV refills for ≥90 days increased from 39% in 2019 to 51% in 2020. ARV coverage was similar for all months of 2019 and 2020 ranging from 76% to 80% except for March 2019 (72%). Women were less likely than men to be on ARVs or to have a VL test in both years. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the VA increased the use of virtual visits and longer ARV refills, while maintaining a high percentage of patients with suppressed VL among those with VL measured. Despite decreased in-person services during the pandemic, access to ARVs was not disrupted. More follow-up time is needed to determine whether overall health was impacted by the use of differentiated service delivery and to evaluate whether a long-term shift to increased virtual healthcare could be beneficial, particularly for PWH in rural areas or with transportation barriers. Programmes to increase ARV use and VL testing for women are needed.

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.

A Broader View of Risk to Health Care Workers: Perspectives on Supporting Vulnerable Health Care Professional Households During COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted both that frontline workers face a new set of personal hazards in health care settings and that there are not well-established recommendations to address the broader risks to these workers and their families. Particularly vulnerable households include dual health care professional households, single-parent health care professional households, and households with health care professionals responsible for a high-risk family member (i.e., an older adult or immunocompromised person). While the demographics of these households are heterogeneous, it is expected that the professional and personal concerns specific to COVID-19 will be similar. These concerns include family safety, balancing full-time work with home-based schooling for children, the looming threat of illness to 1 or both partners, the potential of infecting high-risk family members, and the challenges of planning for the future during uncertain times. To elucidate these concerns in their department, the authors sought input from colleagues in dual health care professional households through an open-ended email communication. Respondents expressed a range of concerns centered on balancing professional and family responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this commentary, the authors propose several recommendations in the areas of support networks, leadership and culture, and operations and logistics that health care institutions can adopt to minimize the burden on these vulnerable households during states of emergency. The successful implementation of these recommendations hinges on creating a work environment in which all health care providers feel comfortable voicing their concerns.