Physicians' perceptions about antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: an online survey report in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides (AAV) are characterized by necrotizing inflammation of small and medium-size vessels that often manifest with devastating multi-organ effects. They present with a myriad of systemic features and require potent immunosuppression. Since they are uncommonly encountered in clinical practice, it is necessary to understand physicians' knowledge and perceptions about this group of diseases. An online questionnaire was designed featuring 28 questions based on relevant global practice guidelines, recommendations, and previous online surveys on AAV. The questionnaire was validated by a core group of specialists with an interest in AAV. It was shared via social networking sites and entries were restricted to physicians. Only completed entries were analyzed with descriptive statistics. A total of 113 respondents from 21 different countries responded of whom the commonest were rheumatologists, internists, and general practitioners. Forty-five (40%) ran clinics dedicated to AAV patients as a part of their practice. They commented on organs involved in AAV; vasculitis secondary to infections, drugs or other rheumatic diseases; various tests useful for AAV diagnosis; and drug choices for induction and maintenance. They mentioned their experience regarding COVID-19 in AAV patients as well as vasculitic manifestations of COVID-19. Various methods to mitigate cardiovascular risks in AAV were mentioned. Finally, the respondents indicated how medical education needed to be strengthened to increase awareness and knowledge regarding AAV. This survey helped to inform about various perceptions regarding AAV across countries, including current practices and recent evolution of management. It also provided information on treatment of the COVID-19 in AAV patients. This survey showed that there is still a lack in understanding the prevalent definitions and there is gap between guidelines and current practice. Key Points • Perception about ANCA-associated vasculitis differ across countries. • The number of cases encountered across 21 different countries are limited implying a need for multi-national cooperation to study this disease further. • The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the approach towards ANCA-associated vasculitis by the various clinicians.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with systemic vasculitis: a single-centre retrospective study.

This study aimed to study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients living with systemic vasculitis in Kazakhstan. A single-centre retrospective study of the medical histories of 82 patients was carried out based on the regional clinical hospital of the city for all admissions with systemic vasculitis in the period from January 2019 to December 2021. The following qualitative (gender, disability, concomitant diseases) and quantitative (age, disease experience, laboratory data, etc.) variables were studied. To conduct the study, the criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of patients in the study were determined. According to the results of the study, there is a decrease in the number of hospitalized patients with vasculitis in the rheumatology department of the regional clinical hospital. Compared to 2019, in 2021, the number of hospitalized patients decreased by almost half (Table 1). Out of 82 cases, the most common was Takayasu disease (nonspecific aortoarteritis) (43.9%), IgA-vasculitis (Schenlein-Genoch disease) (31.71%), and they are typical mainly for females of rural origin, who were admitted to the hospital in a comorbid state (p < 0.001). 41.6% of patients have disabilities, and the majority of patients have a II disability group. The average body mass index is 24.2; 27 patients out of the total number of patients suffer from obesity. The most common clinical symptoms of patients with systemic vasculitis were injuries of the musculoskeletal system (75.6%). A negative average correlation was found between the indicators of the level of ESR and haemoglobin, the correlation coefficient is -0.535. The patients had concomitant diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anaemia, coronary heart disease, hypertension, gastrointestinal tract diseases and hepatitis. Women of reproductive age from rural areas are often diagnosed with systemic vasculitis. A high rate of disability revealed among the patients can be explained by two main factors, the first is that the patients consulted the doctors untimely and the second is that the medical community are insufficiently informed about the management of autoimmune rheumatic diseases, in particular about systemic vasculitis, which hinders timely diagnosis and treatment, respectively. Patients, included in this survey, were mostly suffering from diseases of the musculoskeletal system, but depending on the type of vasculitis, other organs and systems may be affected. Table 1 Frequency of patients with systemic vasculitis over 3 years Year Frequency % p-value 2019 42 51.2 χ2 = 12.463a; p = 0.002 2020 23 28.0 2021 17 20.7 Total 82 100.0.

Knowledge and Perceptions of Reactive Arthritis Diagnosis and Management Among Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Online Survey.

BACKGROUND: Reactive arthritis (ReA) is an often neglected disease that received some attention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There is some evidence that infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 can lead to "reactive" arthritis. However, this does not follow the classical definition of ReA that limits the organisms leading to this condition. Also, there is no recommendation by any international society on the management of ReA during the current pandemic. Thus, a survey was conducted to gather information about how modern clinicians across the world approach ReA. METHODS: An e-survey was carried out based on convenient sampling via social media platforms. Twenty questions were validated on the pathogenesis, clinical presentation, and management of ReA. These also included information on post-COVID-19 arthritis. Duplicate entries were prevented and standard guidelines were followed for reporting internet-based surveys. RESULTS: There were 193 respondents from 24 countries. Around one-fifth knew the classical definition of ReA. Nearly half considered the triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis and asymmetric oligoarthritis a "must" for diagnosis of ReA. Other common manifestations reported include enthesitis, dermatitis, dactylitis, uveitis, and oral or genital ulcers. Three-fourths opined that no test was specific for ReA. Drugs for ReA were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intra-articular injections, and conventional disease-modifying agents with less than 10% supporting biological use. CONCLUSION: The survey brought out the gap in existing concepts of ReA. The current definition needs to be updated. There is an unmet need for consensus recommendations for the management of ReA, including the use of biologicals.

Interplay of diabetes mellitus and rheumatic diseases amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: influence on the risk of infection, outcomes, and immune responses.

Outcomes of COrona VIrus Disease-19 (COVID-19) in patients with rheumatic diseases (RDs) reported in various studies are heterogenous owing to the influence of age and comorbidities which have a significant bearing on the infection risk, severity, morbidity, and mortality. Diabetes mellitus (DM) and RDs are closely linked with underlying pathobiology and treatment of RDs affecting the risk for DM as well as the glycemic control. Hence, we undertook this narrative review to study the influence of DM on outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with RDs. Additionally, aspects of patient attitudes and immune response to COVID-19 vaccination were also studied. The databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were searched for relevant articles. Studies from mixed cohorts revealed insufficient data to comment on the influence of DM on the risk of infection, while most studies showed twice the odds for hospitalization and mortality with DM. Specific cohorts of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus revealed a similar association. Poor health was noted in patients with spondyloarthritis and DM during the pandemic. The presence of DM did not affect patient attitudes towards vaccination and did not predispose to additional vaccine-related adverse effects. Immune response to inactivated vaccines was reduced but mRNA vaccines were maintained in patients with DM. Detailed assessment of DM with its duration, end-organ damage, and glycemic control along with a focused association of DM with various aspects of COVID-19 like risk, hospitalization, severity, mortality, post-COVID sequelae, immune response to infection, and vaccination are needed in the future. Key Points • Diabetes mellitus is associated with the severity of infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and mortality in rheumatic diseases across most studies but studies analyzing its specific role are lacking. • Poor outcomes of COVID-19 in RA and poor health in spondyloarthritis are strongly associated with diabetes mellitus. • Diabetes mellitus may negatively influence the humoral response to inactivated vaccines but does not seem to affect the immune responses to mRNA vaccines. • Diabetes mellitus does not influence the attitude towards vaccination or deviation from the prescribed medications during the pandemic.

Global Health Strategies in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Unprecedented Threats.

Global health is evolving as a discipline aiming at exploring needs and offering equitable health services for all people. Over the past four decades, several global initiatives have been introduced to improve the accessibility of primary health care (PHC) and solve most health issues at this level. Historically, the 1978 Alma-Ata and 2018 Astana Declarations were perhaps the most important documents for a comprehensive approach to PHC services across the world. With the introduction of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, developments in all spheres of human life and multi-sectoral cooperation became the essential action targets that could contribute to improved health, well-being, and safety of all people. Other global initiatives such as the Riyadh Declaration on Digital Health and São Paulo Declaration on Planetary Health called to urgent action to employ advanced digital technologies, improve health data processing, and invest more in research management. All these initiatives are put to the test in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and other unprecedented threats to humanity.

Reactive arthritis before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Most accepted definitions of reactive arthritis (ReA) consider it a type of spondyloarthritis (SpA) precipitated by a gut or urogenital infection. A wider definition considers any arthritis that occurs after a mucosal surface infection as ReA. There is limited consensus regarding a working definition, status of HLA-B27, or even classification criteria for ReA. This may also contribute to a lack of systemic studies or clinical trials for ReA, thereby reducing further treatment recommendations to expert opinions only. The emergence of post-COVID-19 ReA has brought the focus back on this enigmatic entity. Post-COVID-19 ReA can present at extremes of age, appears to affect both sexes equally and can have different presentations. Some present with small joint arthritis, others with SpA phenotype-either with peripheral or axial involvement, while a few have only tenosynovitis or dactylitis. The emergence of post-vaccination inflammatory arthritis hints at similar pathophysiology involved. There needs to be a global consensus on whether or not to include all such conditions under the umbrella of ReA. Doing so will enable studies on uniform groups on how infections precipitate arthritis and what predicts chronicity. These have implications beyond ReA and might be extrapolated to other inflammatory arthritides. Key Points • Classical reactive arthritis (ReA) has a spondyloarthritis phenotype and is preceded by symptomatic gut or urogenital infection • The demonstration of antigen and nucleic acid sequences of pathogens in synovium has blurred the difference between invasive arthritis and reactive arthritis • Post-COVID-19 ReA has a transient phenotype and can have different presentations. All reported cases are self-limiting • The large amount of literature reporting post-COVID-19 ReA calls for introspection if the existing definitions of ReA need to be updated.

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs.

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

Information and Misinformation on COVID-19: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time. METHODS: We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time. RESULTS: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%). CONCLUSION: While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.

Perspectives of Immune Therapy in Coronavirus Disease 2019.

The global fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is largely based on strategies to boost immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent its severe course and complications. The human defence may include antibodies which interact with SARS-CoV-2 and neutralize its aggressive actions on multiple organ systems. Protective cross-reactivity of antibodies against measles and other known viral infections has been postulated, primarily as a result of the initial observations of asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 in children. Uncontrolled case series have demonstrated virus-neutralizing effect of convalescent plasma, supporting its efficiency at early stages of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Given the variability of the virus structure, the utility of convalescent plasma is limited to the geographic area of its preparation, and for a short period of time. Intravenous immunoglobulin may also be protective in view of its nonspecific antiviral and immunomodulatory effects. Finally, human monoclonal antibodies may interact with some SARS-CoV-2 proteins, inhibiting the virus-receptor interaction and prevent tissue injury. The improved understanding of the host antiviral responses may help develop safe and effective immunotherapeutic strategies against COVID-19 in the foreseeable future.