Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Early Career Investigators in Rheumatology: Recommendations to Address Challenges to Early Research Careers.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the careers of trainees and early career investigators (ECIs). We sought to assess how the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and Rheumatology Research Foundation (RRF) can address the needs for those pursuing research careers. METHODS: The Committee on Research created a survey to assess the impact of COVID-19 and identify topics for the ACR and RRF to address. In Fall of 2020, we surveyed post-doctoral trainees and ECIs within nine years of terminal training. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of invitees responded to the survey (N=365); of these, 60% were pursuing careers in academic research. Seventy-five percent of respondents in academic research career paths placed their primary projects on hold during the pandemic. The number of individuals pursuing a research career from 2020 to 2021 decreased by 5%. Respondents reported funding, caregiving, and lack of preliminary data as significant challenges. Suggested impactful interventions included increased funding, funding process reform, and expanding mentoring and networking resources. CONCLUSIONS: Major identified stressors during the pandemic included increased caregiving responsibilities and difficulty obtaining data and funding for which respondents suggested increases and changes to funding programs as well as more mentoring and networking opportunities. Based on these, the Committee on Research proposes three priorities: (1) flexible funding mechanisms for ECIs and additional support for those impacted by caregiving; (2) virtual and in person programs for career development and networking; (3) curated content relevant to building a research career available on-demand. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Inpatient Administration of Alpha-1-Adrenergic Receptor Blocking Agents Reduces Mortality in Male COVID-19 Patients.

Apha-1-adrenergic receptor antagonists (α1-blockers) can suppress pro-inflammatory cytokines, thereby potentially improving outcomes among patients with COVID-19. Accordingly, we evaluated the association between α1-blocker exposure (before or during hospitalization) and COVID-19 in-hospital mortality. We identified 2,627 men aged 45 or older who were admitted to Mount Sinai hospitals with COVID-19 between February 24 and May 31, 2020, in New York. Men exposed to α1-blockers (N = 436) were older (median age 73 vs. 64 years, P < 0.001) and more likely to have comorbidities than unexposed men (N = 2,191). Overall, 777 (29.6%) patients died in hospital, and 1,850 (70.4%) were discharged. Notably, we found that α1-blocker exposure was independently associated with improved in-hospital mortality in a multivariable logistic analysis (OR 0.699; 95% CI, 0.498-0.982; P = 0.039) after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and baseline vitals and labs. The protective effect of α1-blockers was stronger among patients with documented inpatient exposure to α1-blockers (OR 0.624; 95% CI 0.431-0.903; P = 0.012). Finally, age-stratified analyses suggested variable benefit from inpatient α1-blocker across age groups: Age 45-65 OR 0.483, 95% CI 0.216-1.081 (P = 0.077); Age 55-75 OR 0.535, 95% CI 0.323-0.885 (P = 0.015); Age 65-89 OR 0.727, 95% CI 0.484-1.092 (P = 0.124). Taken together, clinical trials to assess the therapeutic value of α1-blockers for COVID-19 complications are warranted.

The impact of COVID-19 on rheumatology training-results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance trainee survey.

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the clinical experiences, research opportunities and well-being of rheumatology trainees. Methods: A voluntary, anonymous, Web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish or French from 19 August 2020 to 5 October 2020. Adult and paediatric rheumatology trainees were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales, the perceptions of trainees regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient care and redeployment, learning and supervision, research and well-being were assessed. Results: There were 302 respondents from 33 countries, with 83% in adult rheumatology training. An increase in non-rheumatology clinical work was reported by 45%, with 68% of these having been redeployed to COVID-19. Overall, trainees reported a negative impact on their learning opportunities during rheumatology training, including outpatient clinics (79%), inpatient consultations (59%), didactic teaching (55%), procedures (53%), teaching opportunities (52%) and ultrasonography (36%). Impacts on research experiences were reported by 46% of respondents, with 39% of these reporting that COVID-19 negatively affected their ability to continue their pre-pandemic research. Burnout and increases in stress were reported by 50% and 68%, respectively. Physical health was negatively impacted by training programme changes in 25% of respondents. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on rheumatology training and trainee well-being. Our study highlights the extent of this impact on research opportunities and clinical care, which are highly relevant to future curriculum planning and the clinical learning environment.

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.

Rapid Adoption of Telemedicine in Rheumatology Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic Highlights Training and Supervision Concerns Among Rheumatology Trainees.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of telemedicine use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on rheumatology trainees. METHODS: A voluntary, anonymous, web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish, or French from August 19 to October 5, 2020. Adult and pediatric rheumatology trainees were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales, the survey assessed prior and current telemedicine use, impact on training, and supervision after COVID-19 prompted rapid telemedicine implementation. RESULTS: Surveys were received from 302 trainees from 33 countries, with 83% in adult rheumatology training programs. Reported telemedicine use increased from 13% before the pandemic to 82% during the pandemic. United States trainees predominantly used video visits, whereas outside the United States telemedicine was predominantly audio only. Most (65%) evaluated new patients using telemedicine. More respondents were comfortable using telemedicine for follow-up patients (69%) than for new patients (25%). Only 39% of respondents reported receiving telemedicine-focused training, including instruction on software, clinical skills, and billing, whereas more than half of United States trainees (59%) had training. Postconsultation verbal discussion was the most frequent form of supervision; 24% reported no supervision. Trainees found that telemedicine negatively impacted supervision (50%) and the quality of clinical teaching received (70%), with only 9% reporting a positive impact. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread uptake of telemedicine, a low proportion of trainees received telemedicine training, and many lacked comfort in evaluating patients, particularly new patients. Inadequate supervision and clinical teaching were areas of concern. If telemedicine remains in widespread use, ensuring appropriate trainee supervision and teaching should be prioritized.

Ten Rules for Conducting Retrospective Pharmacoepidemiological Analyses: Example COVID-19 Study.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, pharmaceutical treatment hypotheses have abounded, each requiring careful evaluation. A randomized controlled trial generally provides the most credible evaluation of a treatment, but the efficiency and effectiveness of the trial depend on the existing evidence supporting the treatment. The researcher must therefore compile a body of evidence justifying the use of time and resources to further investigate a treatment hypothesis in a trial. An observational study can provide this evidence, but the lack of randomized exposure and the researcher's inability to control treatment administration and data collection introduce significant challenges. A proper analysis of observational health care data thus requires contributions from experts in a diverse set of topics ranging from epidemiology and causal analysis to relevant medical specialties and data sources. Here we summarize these contributions as 10 rules that serve as an end-to-end introduction to retrospective pharmacoepidemiological analyses of observational health care data using a running example of a hypothetical COVID-19 study. A detailed supplement presents a practical how-to guide for following each rule. When carefully designed and properly executed, a retrospective pharmacoepidemiological analysis framed around these rules will inform the decisions of whether and how to investigate a treatment hypothesis in a randomized controlled trial. This work has important implications for any future pandemic by prescribing what we can and should do while the world waits for global vaccine distribution.

Alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonists to prevent hyperinflammation and death from lower respiratory tract infection.

In severe viral pneumonia, including Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the viral replication phase is often followed by hyperinflammation, which can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multi-organ failure, and death. We previously demonstrated that alpha-1 adrenergic receptor (⍺1-AR) antagonists can prevent hyperinflammation and death in mice. Here, we conducted retrospective analyses in two cohorts of patients with acute respiratory distress (ARD, n = 18,547) and three cohorts with pneumonia (n = 400,907). Federated across two ARD cohorts, we find that patients exposed to ⍺1-AR antagonists, as compared to unexposed patients, had a 34% relative risk reduction for mechanical ventilation and death (OR = 0.70, p = 0.021). We replicated these methods on three pneumonia cohorts, all with similar effects on both outcomes. All results were robust to sensitivity analyses. These results highlight the urgent need for prospective trials testing whether prophylactic use of ⍺1-AR antagonists ameliorates lower respiratory tract infection-associated hyperinflammation and death, as observed in COVID-19.

The Association Between Alpha-1 Adrenergic Receptor Antagonists and In-Hospital Mortality From COVID-19.

Effective therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed, and pre-clinical data suggest alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonists (α1-AR antagonists) may be effective in reducing mortality related to hyperinflammation independent of etiology. Using a retrospective cohort design with patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system, we use doubly robust regression and matching to estimate the association between baseline use of α1-AR antagonists and likelihood of death due to COVID-19 during hospitalization. Having an active prescription for any α1-AR antagonist (tamsulosin, silodosin, prazosin, terazosin, doxazosin, or alfuzosin) at the time of admission had a significant negative association with in-hospital mortality (relative risk reduction 18%; odds ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.85; p ≤ 0.001) and death within 28 days of admission (relative risk reduction 17%; odds ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.65-0.84; p ≤ 0.001). In a subset of patients on doxazosin specifically, an inhibitor of all three alpha-1 adrenergic receptors, we observed a relative risk reduction for death of 74% (odds ratio 0.23; 95% CI 0.03-0.94; p = 0.028) compared to matched controls not on any α1-AR antagonist at the time of admission. These findings suggest that use of α1-AR antagonists may reduce mortality in COVID-19, supporting the need for randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with early symptomatic infection.

Inflammatory arthritis in patients with COVID-19.

Patients with inflammatory arthritis represent a possible high-risk group to COVID-19 due to their immunosuppressive regimen designed to maintain low disease activity. Thus, substantial effort has been put forth to understand the impact of COVID-19 on these patients. Patients with rheumatic diseases as a whole do not appear to be more susceptible to acquiring COVID-19. Furthermore, immunosuppression generally did not increase the likelihood of developing severe COVID-19, with the important exception of medium and high-dose glucocorticoid use. In addition, a small number of COVID-19 patients have developed new inflammatory arthritis; whether this represents an unmasking of previous subclinical disease or a bone fide virus-induced arthritis is unclear. Nevertheless, it appears that inflammatory arthritis patients currently on immunosuppression should continue their medication to prevent future flares and limit glucocorticoid usage. While this continues to be a rapidly evolving field, these data are reassuring to both patients with and providers treating inflammatory arthritides.

Coronavirus disease 2019: investigational therapies in the prevention and treatment of hyperinflammation.

Introduction: The mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is frequently driven by an injurious immune response characterized by the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), endotheliitis, coagulopathy, and multi-organ failure. This spectrum of hyperinflammation in COVID-19 is commonly referred to as cytokine storm syndrome (CSS). Areas covered: Medline and Google Scholar were searched up until 15th of August 2020 for relevant literature. Evidence supports a role of dysregulated immune responses in the immunopathogenesis of severe COVID-19. CSS associated with SARS-CoV-2 shows similarities to the exuberant cytokine production in some patients with viral infection (e.g.SARS-CoV-1) and may be confused with other syndromes of hyperinflammation like the cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in CAR-T cell therapy. Interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha have emerged as predictors of COVID-19 severity and in-hospital mortality. Expert opinion: Despite similarities, COVID-19-CSS appears to be distinct from HLH, MAS, and CRS, and the application of HLH diagnostic scores and criteria to COVID-19 is not supported by emerging data. While immunosuppressive therapy with glucocorticoids has shown a mortality benefit, cytokine inhibitors may hold promise as 'rescue therapies' in severe COVID-19. Given the arguably limited benefit in advanced disease, strategies to prevent the development of COVID-19-CSS are needed.

Alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonists for preventing acute respiratory distress syndrome and death from cytokine storm syndrome.

In severe viral pneumonias, including Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the viral replication phase is often followed by a hyperinflammatory reaction ('cytokine storm syndrome') that leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death, despite maximal supportive care. Preventing hyperinflammation is key to avoiding these outcomes. We previously demonstrated that alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonists ($\alpha$-blockers) can prevent cytokine storm syndrome and death in mice. Here, we conduct a retrospective analysis of patients with acute respiratory distress or pneumonia (n = 13,125 and n = 108,956, respectively) from all causes; patients who were incidentally taking $\alpha$-blockers had a reduced risk of requiring ventilation (by 35% and 16%, respectively), and a reduced risk of being ventilated and dying (by 56% and 20%, respectively), compared to non-users. Beta-adrenergic receptor antagonists had no significant effects. These results highlight the urgent need for prospective trials testing whether prophylactic $\alpha$-blockers improve outcomes in diseases with a prominent hyperinflammatory component such as COVID-19.

A Pharmacokinetics-Informed Approach to Navigating Hydroxychloroquine Shortages in Patients With Rheumatic Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The recent hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) shortage due to use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has forced some rheumatic disease patients to choose between continuing their current dose of HCQ but exhaust their supply early or ration it in order to prolong its use. Blood HCQ concentrations are directly correlated with disease activity in rheumatic diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus. We sought to model how changes in HCQ dosage will best maintain sufficient blood HCQ concentrations for the longest period of time in order to avoid potential future flares. METHODS: A one-compartment pharmacokinetic model was used to predict mean blood HCQ concentrations. Monte Carlo simulations with 10-fold inflated model parameter variance was utilized to assess the impact of variability. RESULTS: Maintenance of 400 mg/d resulted in mean therapeutic whole-blood HCQ concentrations that exceeded 700 ng/ml for 10.5 days, whereas HCQ rationing by reducing the dose by half resulted in the mean concentration remaining above 700 ng/ml for 2.4 days (net gain = 8 days). Variability analysis demonstrates that results may differ at the individual level, dependent on baseline blood HCQ concentrations. CONCLUSION: Although mean blood concentrations exceed 700 ng/ml for a longer time if patients maintain their full dose of HCQ, more information is needed to fully understand the elimination of HCQ at the patient level, particularly the contribution of tissue stores of HCQ transiting back into the blood.

Swinging the pendulum: lessons learned from public discourse concerning hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Several months into the COVID-19 pandemic, safe and effective treatments against this global health disaster have yet to be identified. Clinical research trials around the world are underway testing a wide array of possible medications. In particular, the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and treatment has created many unprecedented challenges for the scientific community and the public. AREAS COVERED: We critically assessed major events from February - May 2020 that contributed to widespread use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19. We aimed to explore how opinions toward hydroxychloroquine may shift from early enthusiasm (based on in vitro and preliminary clinical data) to the hope for a miracle cure (through communication and promotion of questionable results) and, finally, to a rise of skepticism as more in-depth analyses are emerging. EXPERT OPINION: Mindful and rigorous acquisition of data, as well as its interpretation, are essential to an effective pandemic response. The rapid and premature promotion of results has had major implications for global crisis management, even creating distrust among the public. It is crucial for the medical and scientific community to incorporate the lessons learned from this situation.