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.

Rituximab is associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A retrospective, nationally sampled cohort study from the U.S. National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C).

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether rituximab (RTX) is associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), the largest US cohort of COVID-19 cases and controls, to identify patients with RA (International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code, M05.X or M06.X). Key outcomes were COVID-19-related hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 30-day mortality, and World Health Organization (WHO) classification for COVID-19 severity. We used multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association between RTX use and the odds of COVID-19 outcomes compared with the use of conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), adjusting for demographics, medical comorbidities, smoking status, body mass index, US region and COVID-19 treatments. RESULTS: A total of 69,549 patients met our eligibility criteria of which 22,956 received a COVID-19 positive diagnosis between 1/1/2020 and 9/16/2021. Median (IQR) age of the cohort was 63 (52-72) years, 76% of the cohort was female, 68% was non-Hispanic/Latinx White, and 73% was non-smokers. Prior to their first COVID-19 diagnosis, 364 patients were exposed to RTX. Compared to the use of csDMARDs, RTX use was associated with an increased odds of COVID-19-related hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5-3.0), ICU admission (aOR 5.2, 1.8-15.4) and invasive ventilation (aOR 2.7, 1.4-5.5). Results were confirmed in multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our findings can guide patients, providers, and policymakers regarding the increased risks associated with RTX use during the COVID-19 pandemic. These results can help risk stratification and prognosis-assessment.

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.

Physician, Nurse, and Advanced Practice Provider Perspectives on the Rapid Transition to Inpatient and Outpatient Telemedicine.

Background: Many health systems transitioned rapidly to using inpatient and outpatient telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior research has examined clinician satisfaction and experiences with telemedicine in a siloed approach for specific provider types. Less is known about how experiences with the rapid transition to telemedicine affected the entire clinical team, and how this contributed to their overall distress. Methods: A survey was conducted within a large academic medical center in the Southeastern United States during June of 2020. The survey asked about experiences with inpatient and outpatient telemedicine and overall distress. Analysis of variance was calculated to examine differences in experiences among physicians, nurses, and advanced practice providers (APPs) with both inpatient and outpatient telemedicine. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to determine whether reported telemedicine stressors were associated with changes in overall distress scores. Qualitative comments provided during the survey were included to illustrate the quantitative findings. Results: Of the 1130 survey respondents, 237 indicated that they used telemedicine. Telemedicine use was not statistically significantly associated with overall distress scores. The APPs indicated the greatest satisfaction with telemedicine, followed by physicians and then nurses. Team members differed on their perceptions of quality of care and safety for inpatient and outpatient telemedicine. Physicians (70%) and APPs (64%) felt safer having the option to use inpatient telemedicine, whereas only 26% of nurses reported the same. Overall, >70% of physicians and APPs would like to continue having the option to use inpatient and outpatient telemedicine in the future, whereas <50% of nurses reported the same. Discussion: These results suggest that telemedicine holds promise for providing care beyond the pandemic, and it may be a mechanism to improve flexibility, autonomy, and expand patient access. Implementation of new technologies must consider the experiences of the entire team, rather than a siloed approach to determining satisfaction with the changes.

Gout management and outcomes during established COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021: a cross-sectional Internet survey.

Objective: To assess the management of gout in established COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We assessed medication use, health care utilization, gout-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL), psychological distress using Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), resilience, illness perception, and health literacy in people with physician-diagnosed self-reported gout in established COVID-19 pandemic in a cross-sectional Internet survey. Results: Among the 130 survey respondents with gout, the mean age was 62.8 years, 65% were male, 83% were White, 59% were prescribed urate-lowering therapy (ULT), and health literacy was adequate in 80%. A third of survey respondents reported more difficulty with their gout management since September 2020. Gout-specific HRQOL deficits were evident. Moderate-severe psychological distress was seen in 22%, and resilience score was 6.5 [standard deviation (SD), 1.9; range, 0-8]. Adjusted for age and sex, compared with no/mild psychological distress, moderate-severe psychological distress was associated with significantly higher odds ratio (OR; 95% confidence interval) of more difficulty with (1) getting health care for gout in clinic, 3.7 (1.0, 13.2); emergency room/urgent care, 8.1 (1.4, 45.0); and in the hospital, 9.8 (1.6, 59.6); (2) getting gout flares treated, 6.6 (1.6, 26.8); (3) avoiding gout complications, 4.5 (1.2, 16.7); and (4) daily activities at home, 4.2 (1.3, 14.1), and performing work, 4.1 (1.2, 13.6). Conclusion: Respondents with gout reported health care gaps, low rates of ULT prescription, high psychological distress, and HRQOL deficits during established COVID-19 pandemic. Moderate-severe psychological distress was associated with difficulties in health care access and gout management. Interventions to address these challenges in gout management are needed.

NSAID use and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: a 38-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to reduce pain, fever, and inflammation but have been associated with complications in community-acquired pneumonia. Observations shortly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 suggested that ibuprofen was associated with an increased risk of adverse events in COVID-19 patients, but subsequent observational studies failed to demonstrate increased risk and in one case showed reduced risk associated with NSAID use. METHODS: A 38-center retrospective cohort study was performed that leveraged the harmonized, high-granularity electronic health record data of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative. A propensity-matched cohort of 19,746 COVID-19 inpatients was constructed by matching cases (treated with NSAIDs at the time of admission) and 19,746 controls (not treated) from 857,061 patients with COVID-19 available for analysis. The primary outcome of interest was COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, which was classified as: moderate, severe, or mortality/hospice. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), invasive ventilation, and all-cause mortality at any time following COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: Logistic regression showed that NSAID use was not associated with increased COVID-19 severity (OR: 0.57 95% CI: 0.53-0.61). Analysis of secondary outcomes using logistic regression showed that NSAID use was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.51 95% CI: 0.47-0.56), invasive ventilation (OR: 0.59 95% CI: 0.55-0.64), AKI (OR: 0.67 95% CI: 0.63-0.72), or ECMO (OR: 0.51 95% CI: 0.36-0.7). In contrast, the odds ratios indicate reduced risk of these outcomes, but our quantitative bias analysis showed E-values of between 1.9 and 3.3 for these associations, indicating that comparatively weak or moderate confounder associations could explain away the observed associations. CONCLUSIONS: Study interpretation is limited by the observational design. Recording of NSAID use may have been incomplete. Our study demonstrates that NSAID use is not associated with increased COVID-19 severity, all-cause mortality, invasive ventilation, AKI, or ECMO in COVID-19 inpatients. A conservative interpretation in light of the quantitative bias analysis is that there is no evidence that NSAID use is associated with risk of increased severity or the other measured outcomes. Our results confirm and extend analogous findings in previous observational studies using a large cohort of patients drawn from 38 centers in a nationally representative multicenter database.

Telemedicine Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Resilient Rheumatology Providers: A National Veterans Affairs Follow-up Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess rheumatology provider experience and practices at Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We performed an anonymized follow-up national cross-sectional survey (November 5, 2020 to January 1, 2021) to assess provider resilience, experience, practices, views, and opinions about changes to medications and laboratory monitoring of veterans with rheumatic diseases. RESULTS: Of the 143 eligible VA rheumatology providers, 114 (80%) responded. Compared to the original survey, fewer providers reported using telephone visits (78% vs 91%, P = 0.009), and more used clinical video telehealth (CVT; 16% vs 7%, P = 0.04) or in-person visits (76% vs 59%, P = 0.007). Most providers were somewhat or very comfortable with the quality of clinical encounters for established but not new patients for telephone, video-based VA Video Connect (VVC), and CVT. The mean 2-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale score was 6.85 (SD 1.06, range 0-8), significantly higher than the original April-May 2020 survey score of 6.35 (SD 1.26; P = 0.004). When adjusted for age, sex, and ethnicity, high provider resilience was associated with significantly higher odds of comfort with technology and the quality of the VVC visit for the following: (1) established patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.72, 95% CI, 0.67-4.40 and OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.49-11.44, respectively) and (2) new patients (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.11-7.05, and OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.06-6.82, respectively). CONCLUSION: Reassuringly, VA rheumatology providers became increasingly comfortable with video visits during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. High provider resilience, and its association with better quality CVTs, raise the possibility that video visits might be an acceptable substitute for in-person visits under appropriate circumstances.

Association Between Immune Dysfunction and COVID-19 Breakthrough Infection After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in the US.

Importance: Persons with immune dysfunction have a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, these patients were largely excluded from SARS-CoV-2 vaccine clinical trials, creating a large evidence gap. Objective: To identify the incidence rate and incidence rate ratio (IRR) for COVID-19 breakthrough infection after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among persons with or without immune dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a partnership that developed a secure, centralized electronic medical record-based repository of COVID-19 clinical data from academic medical centers across the US. Persons who received at least 1 dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine between December 10, 2020, and September 16, 2021, were included in the sample. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccination, COVID-19 diagnosis, immune dysfunction diagnoses (ie, HIV infection, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, solid organ transplant, and bone marrow transplantation), other comorbid conditions, and demographic data were accessed through the N3C Data Enclave. Breakthrough infection was defined as a COVID-19 infection that was contracted on or after the 14th day of vaccination, and the risk after full or partial vaccination was assessed for patients with or without immune dysfunction using Poisson regression with robust SEs. Poisson regression models were controlled for a study period (before or after [pre- or post-Delta variant] June 20, 2021), full vaccination status, COVID-19 infection before vaccination, demographic characteristics, geographic location, and comorbidity burden. Results: A total of 664 722 patients in the N3C sample were included. These patients had a median (IQR) age of 51 (34-66) years and were predominantly women (n = 378 307 [56.9%]). Overall, the incidence rate for COVID-19 breakthrough infection was 5.0 per 1000 person-months among fully vaccinated persons but was higher after the Delta variant became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 strain (incidence rate before vs after June 20, 2021, 2.2 [95% CI, 2.2-2.2] vs 7.3 [95% CI, 7.3-7.4] per 1000 person-months). Compared with partial vaccination, full vaccination was associated with a 28% reduced risk for breakthrough infection (adjusted IRR [AIRR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68-0.76). People with a breakthrough infection after full vaccination were more likely to be older and women. People with HIV infection (AIRR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.18-1.49), rheumatoid arthritis (AIRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.32), and solid organ transplant (AIRR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.96-2.38) had a higher rate of breakthrough infection. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that full vaccination was associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection, regardless of the immune status of patients. Despite full vaccination, persons with immune dysfunction had substantially higher risk for COVID-19 breakthrough infection than those without such a condition. For persons with immune dysfunction, continued use of nonpharmaceutical interventions (eg, mask wearing) and alternative vaccine strategies (eg, additional doses or immunogenicity testing) are recommended even after full vaccination.

Healthcare is a Team Sport: Stress, Resilience, and Correlates of Well-Being Among Health System Employees in a Crisis.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: While the COVID-19 pandemic has added stressors to the lives of healthcare workers, it is unclear which factors represent the most useful targets for interventions to mitigate employee distress across the entire healthcare team. A survey was distributed to employees of a large healthcare system in the Southeastern United States, and 1,130 respondents participated. The survey measured overall distress using the 9-item Well-Being Index (WBI), work-related factors, moral distress, resilience, and organizational-level factors. Respondents were also asked to identify major work, clinical, and nonwork stressors. Multivariate regression was used to evaluate associations between employee characteristics and WBI distress score. Overall, 82% of employees reported high distress (WBI ≥ 2), with nurses, clinical support staff, and advanced practice providers reporting the highest average scores. Factors associated with higher distress included increased job demands or responsibilities, heavy workload or long hours, higher frequency of moral distress, and loneliness or social isolation. Factors associated with lower distress were perceived organizational support, work control, perceived fairness of salary cuts, and resilience. Most factors significantly associated with distress-heavy workloads and long hours, increased job demands, and moral distress, in particular-were work-related, indicating that efforts can be made to mitigate them. Resilience explained a small portion of the variance in distress relative to other work-related factors. Ensuring appropriate staffing levels may represent the single largest opportunity to significantly move the needle on distress. However, the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the healthcare system may represent a barrier to addressing these stressors.

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.

Management of Rheumatic Diseases During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Veterans Affairs Survey of Rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the experience, views, and opinions of rheumatology providers at Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities about rheumatic disease health care issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed an anonymized cross-sectional survey, conducted from April 16 to May 18, 2020, of VA rheumatology providers. We assessed provider perspectives on COVID-19 issues and resilience. RESULTS: Of the 153 eligible VA rheumatologists, 103 (67%) completed the survey. A significant proportion of providers reported a ≥50% increase related to COVID-19 in visits by telephone (53%), video-based VA video connect (VVC; 44%), and clinical video telehealth with a facilitator (29%). A majority of the responders were somewhat or very comfortable with technology for providing health care to established patients during the COVID-19 pandemic using telephone (87%), VVC (64%), and in-person visits (54%). A smaller proportion were comfortable with technology providing health care to new patients. At least 65% of rheumatologists considered telephone visits appropriate for established patients with gout, osteoporosis, polymyalgia rheumatica, stable rheumatoid arthritis, stable spondyloarthritis, or osteoarthritis; 32% reported a rheumatology medication shortage. Adjusted for age, sex, and ethnicity, high provider resilience was associated with significantly higher odds ratios (ORs) of comfort with technology for telephone (OR 3.1 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.1-9.7]) and VVC visits for new patients (OR 4.7 [95% CI 1.4-15.7]). CONCLUSION: A better understanding of COVID-19 rheumatic disease health care issues using a health-system approach can better inform providers, improve provider satisfaction, and have positive effects on the care of veterans with rheumatic disease.

Gout management and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional internet survey.

AIM: We aimed to assess the gout management during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We assessed medication use, healthcare utilization, gout-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on the Gout Impact Scale (GIS), psychological distress using the patient health questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), and resilience in people with self-reported physician-diagnosed gout during the COVID-19 pandemic in a cross-sectional Internet survey. RESULTS: Among the 122 survey respondents with physician-diagnosed gout, 82% were prescribed urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and 66% were taking ULT daily; mean age was 54.2 years [standard deviation (SD), 13.8], 65% were male, and 79% were White. More regular use of gout medication was reported during the COVID-19 pandemic: allopurinol, 44%; colchicine, 37%; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 36%. Gout flares were common: 63% had ⩾1 gout flare monthly; 11% went to emergency room/urgent care; and 2% were hospitalized with gout flares. Between 41% and 56% of respondents reported more difficulty with gout management and related functional status related to COVID-19; 17-37% had difficulty with healthcare access for gout. HRQOL deficits were evident for gout concern overall, 79.4 (SD, 25); unmet gout treatment need, 64.5 (SD, 27.1); and gout concern during flare, 67.3 (SD, 27.1); but less so for gout medication side effects, 48.9 (SD, 27.4). Psychological distress was moderate in 19% and severe in 15% (mild, 22%; normal, 45%). Resilience score on Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC2) was 5.6 (SD, 1.8; range 0-8). Compared with no/mild psychological distress, moderate-severe psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly associated with more difficulty getting gout medication filled (p = 0.02), flares treated (p = 0.005), and receiving gout education (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Healthcare gaps, psychological distress, and HRQoL deficits were commonly reported by people with gout during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interventions to address these challenges for people with gout during the COVID-19 pandemic are needed.