Impact of teleconsultation on subsequent disease activity and flares in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the widespread adoption of teleconsultations amid the COVID-19 pandemic, their safety in SLE patients has not been evaluated. Here, we examined subsequent disease activity and flares among SLE patients who received teleconsultation vs in-person consultation. To discern differences in physicians' prescription behaviour during both forms of consultations, we compared corticosteroid dose adjustments. METHODS: We studied adult SLE patients who were seen between 1 February 2020 and 1 February 2021. At each patient-visit, rheumatologists utilized phone/video teleconsultation or physical consultation at their discretion. Disease activity was assessed with SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) and flares were defined by the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index (SFI). We derived a propensity score for patients who were chosen for physical consultation. Multivariable generalized estimation equations were used to analyse SLEDAI-2k and flare at the next visit, adjusted for the propensity score. RESULTS: A total of 435 visits were recorded, of which 343 (78.9%) were physical visits and 92 (21.1%) were teleconsultations. The modality of consultation did not predict flare [OR for physical consultation (95% CI) 0.42 (0.04, 5.04), P =0.49] or SLEDAI-2k at the next visit [estimate of coefficient for physical consultation (95% CI) -0.19 (-0.80, 0.43), P =0.55]. Adjustments of prednisolone dosages were comparable between the two forms of visits [OR for physical consultation (95% CI) 1.34 (0.77, 2.34), P =0.30]. CONCLUSION: SLE disease activity and flares at the subsequent visit were similar between teleconsultations and physical consultations. Medication prescription behaviour, determined using adjustment in corticosteroid dosages, was not different between the two forms of visits.

Recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in people with rheumatic disease: Developed by the Singapore Chapter of Rheumatologists.

AIM: People with rheumatic diseases (PRD) remain vulnerable in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. We formulated recommendations to meet the urgent need for a consensus for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in PRD. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were performed to evaluate: (a) outcomes in PRD with COVID-19; (b) efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccination; and (c) published guidelines/recommendations for non-live, non-COVID-19 vaccinations in PRD. Recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and expert opinion according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. RESULTS: The consensus comprises 2 overarching principles and 7 recommendations. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in PRD should be aligned with prevailing national policy and should be individualized through shared decision between the healthcare provider and patient. We strongly recommend that eligible PRD and household contacts be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. We conditionally recommended that the COVID-19 vaccine be administered during quiescent disease if possible. Immunomodulatory drugs, other than rituximab, can be continued alongside vaccination. We conditionally recommend that the COVID-19 vaccine be administered prior to commencing rituximab if possible. For patients on rituximab, the vaccine should be administered a minimum of 6 months after the last dose and/or 4 weeks prior to the next dose of rituximab. Post-vaccination antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 need not be measured. Any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines may be used, with no particular preference. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide guidance for COVID-19 vaccination in PRD. Most recommendations in this consensus are conditional, reflecting a lack of evidence or low-level evidence.