ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients with rheumatic diseases may present more severe SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population. However, in some studies, hospitalization and mortality due COVID-19 were lower in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) compared to other rheumatic diseases.ObjectivesTo assess the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with axSpA from the SAR-COVID registry, comparing them with patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to determine the factors associated with poor outcomes and death.MethodsPatients ≥18 years old from the SAR-COVID national registry with diagnosis of AxSpA (ASAS criteria 2009) and RA (ACR/EULAR criteria 2010) who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (RT-PCR or positive serology), recruited from August 2020 to June 2022 were included. Sociodemographic and clinical data, comorbidities, treatments and outcomes of the infection were collected. Infection severity was assessed using the WHO-ordinal scale (WHO-OS)[1]: ambulatory [1], mild hospitalizations (2.3 y 4), severe hospitalizations (5.6 y 7) and death [8].Statistical analysisDescriptive statistics. Chi[2] or Fischer test and Student T or Mann-Whitney as appropriate. Poisson generalized linear model.ResultsA total of 1226 patients were included, 59 (4.8%) with axSpA and 1167 (95.2%) with RA. RA patients were significantly older, more frequently female, and had a longer disease duration. More than a third of the patients were in remission. 43.9 % presented comorbidities, arterial hypertension being the most frequent. At the time of SARS-Cov-2 diagnosis, patients with RA used glucocorticoids and conventional DMARDs more frequently than those with axSpA, while 74.6% of the latter were under treatment with biological DMARDs being anti-TNF the most used (61%).94.9 % of the patients in both groups reported symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although the differences were not significant, patients with RA presented more frequently cough, dyspnea, and gastrointestinal symptoms, while those with axSpA reported more frequently odynophagia, anosmia, and dysgeusia. During the SARS-CoV-2 infection, 6.8% and 23.5% of the patients with axSpA and RA were hospitalized, respectively. All of the patients with axSpA were admitted to the general ward, while 26.6% of those with RA to intensive care units. No patient with axSpA had complications or severe COVID-19 (WHO-OS>=5) or died as a result of the infection while mortality in the RA group was 3.3% (Figure 1).In the multivariate analysis adjusted to poor prognosis factors, no association was found between the diagnosis of axSpA and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection assessed with the WHO-OS (OR -0.18, IC 95%(-0.38, 0.01, p=0.074).ConclusionPatients with EspAax did not present complications from SARS-CoV-2 infections and none of them died due COVID-19.Reference[1]World Health Organization coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Therapeutic Trial Synopsis Draft 2020.Figure 1.Outcomes and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with axSpA and RA.[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsAndrea Bravo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Tatiana Barbich Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carolina Isnardi Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretati n, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Emilce Edith Schneeberger Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Rosana Quintana Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Cecilia Pisoni Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Mariana Pera Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Edson Velozo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Dora Aida Pereira Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Paula Alba Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Juan A Albiero Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Jaime Villafañe Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Hernan Maldonado Ficco Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Veronica Sa io Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Santiago Eduardo Aguero Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Romina Rojas Tessel Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Maria Isabel Quaglia Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., María Soledad Gálvez Elkin Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access tothe information collected in the database., Gisela Paola Pendon Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carolina Aeschlimann Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Gustavo Fabian Rodriguez Gil Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Malena Viola Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Cecilia Romeo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carla Maldini Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Silvana Mariela Conti Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor re istry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Rosana Gallo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Leticia Ibañez Zurlo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Maria Natalia Tamborenea Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Susana Isabel Pineda Vidal Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Debora Guaglianone Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Jonatan Marcos Mareco Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Cecilia Goizueta Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Elisa Novatti Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Fernanda Guzzanti Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Gimena Gómez Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Karen Roberts Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of t em participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Guillermo Pons-Estel Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To evaluate the humoral immune response to the third dose (booster) of vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who were seronegative after a two-dose regimen. Method(s): Observational study. Patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who had not achieved seroconversion after a two-dose vaccine schedule against SARS-CoV-2 were included. To assess the humoral immune response, anti-RBD IgG (S protein receptor binding domain) neutralizing antibody titers were determined by ELISA (cutoff titer 200). The determination was made between 30 to 45 days after the third dose. Result(s): From 66 patients who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, 18 patients (29.5%) were seronegative after a two-dose schedule. 61% had SLE, 77% had comorbidities (61% with hypertension, p = 0.03). Patients were on treatment: 10 with prednisone (8 with doses greater than 10 mg/d, p = 0.01), 10 with hydroxychloroquine, one with methotrexate, one with leflunomide, four with azathioprine, five with my cophenolatemofetil and five with rituximab (they are the total number of non-responders on biological treatment, p = 0.03). Regarding the primary vaccination regimen, 11 received BBIBP-CorV (p = 0.01), 5 AZD1222, 1 Gam-COVID-Vac and 1 mRNA1273/Gam-COVID-Vac heterologous scheme. Of these 18 non-responders, 14 received a third dose;nine patients (62%) presented anti-RBD IgG detectable. Of the five patients who did not respond to the booster vaccination, three had received BBIBP-CorV as the initial schedule and the vaccines applied as a third dose were Ad5-nCoV (1), BNT162b2 (1), AZD 1222 (2) and Gam-COVID-Vac (1). They were being treated with: rituximab (2), azathioprine (2) and mycophenolate mofetil (1). Treatment with higher doses of prednisone was the only factor associated with non-seroconversion to the third dose (8 +/- 4.5;p 0.02). Conclusion(s): The third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allowed to improve the serological response to vaccination, achieving a seroconversion of 62% in this group of patients.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of SARSCoV-2 infection in patients with systemic vasculitis. Method(s): Observational, multicenter, cross-sectional analytical study in patients 18 or older diagnosed with systemic vasculitis with confirmed SARSCoV-2 infection (RT-PCR or serology) included in the SAR-COVID registry. Patients were evaluated from July 2020 to February 2022. Patients diagnosed with ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), other systemic vasculitides (Giant cell arteritis, Takayasu), and a control group of patients with other rheumatological diseases matched by age, sex, comorbidities, and date of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The survival curve of the groups was studied by Kaplan-Meier and compared through the Log-Rank Test. A Cox regression model will be performed to adjust survival for different variables (sex, age, treatments for underlying disease, treatments for viral infection, smoking, obesity, d-dimer level, and disease activity). Result(s): A total of 282 out of 2694 patients in the SAR-COVID registry were included, 57.4%women with a mean age of 55.7 years (SD 14.1). Fifty-four patients in the AAV group, 32 in the other vasculitis group, and 196 controls were studied. Hospitalization was required in 53.7% of the AAV group, 37.5% in other vasculitides, and 26.2% in the control group. 5.6% of patients in the control group presented acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), 15.6% in the other vasculitis group, and 22.2% in the AAV group (p alpha 0.001). Complete recovery was observed in 82.3% of patients in the control group, 75%in the other vasculitis group, and 63%in the AAV group.We observed that 5.7% of the patients in the control group died from COVID-19, 9.4%from other vasculitides, and 27.8% in the AAV group (p alpha 0.001). We found a lower survival in the AAV group compared to the control group (p alpha 0.005). In the multivariate Cox regression model, older age (HR:1.05 IC95%1.01-1.09 p = 0.01), BMI > 40 (HR:13.2 IC95% 2.1-83.2 p = 0.01), and high activity of the underlying disease (HR:16 95% CI 3.7-69.4 p alpha 0.005) were associated with lower survival. Conclusion(s): In conclusion, patients diagnosed with AAV presented a worse disease course during SARS-CoV-2 infection with a more frequent requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation. Likewise, these patients showed lower survival compared to patients with other autoimmune diseases.
ABSTRACT
Exposure to technology impacts children’s perception and conceptualisation of the way devices they regularly use work. This prompts us to study if almost two years of online teaching, enabled by a broad range of technologies, have influenced the way children imagine a search companion would look and behave when helping them perform school-related search tasks. We conducted a 2-stage study during which children ages 9 to 11 drew and described their imaginary search companion;they also chose a few desirable and non-necessary traits. By following the protocol of a study conducted pre-pandemic, we contextualise salient altered expectations that we attribute to exposure to technology prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We highlight and discuss emerging trends observed from the analysis of data gathered before and after the extensive online experience and how these will guide the design of functionality of a search companion for the classroom. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
ABSTRACT
Background: Several trials have reported lower seroconversion rates in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases than in healthy patients. In Argentina, the vaccines that were available during the development of this study were: Sputnik V (Gam-COVID-Vac), AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCov-19), Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV) and Moderna (mRNA-1273). Limited information is available about vaccines against SARS-CoV2 with inactivated virus or viral vector in autoimmune patients. Objectives: To evaluate the humoral immune response to vaccines against SARS-CoV2 in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases;to compare the humoral response among patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and other autoimmune diseases and to analyse the variables associated. Methods: We included patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (Rheumatology Unit of Padilla Hospital, Tucumán, Argentina), who received vaccination against SARS-CoV2 from June 2021. Sociodemographic, comorbidities, related to rheumatic disease, vaccination and SARS-CoV2 infection were the variables recorded. To evaluate the humoral immune response, the neutralizing anti-S-RBD IgG antibody titres were determined by ELISA 'In House' test with a cut-off titre of 200 (IMMCA). The times established for the serological determinations were: T0 or baseline: 1st vaccine dose, T1: 14 ± 2 days after the 1st dose, T2: 2nd dose, T3: 21-45 days after the 2nd dose, T4: 30 days after the 3rd dose, T5: 6 months and T6: 12 months after the 3rd dose. Results: 66 patients were included, 91% women and 92.4% Amerindians. The mean age was 40.7 ± 11.4 years;53% with SLE, 15.2% Rheumatoid Arthritis, 7.6% Systemic Sclerosis, 7.6% Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, 7.6% Systemic Vasculitis and 9% other diagnoses;mean disease duration was 12.05 ± 7. 5 years;63.6% had at least one comorbidity (57% HBP, 31% overweight or obesity). At baseline, the treatments received were: corticoster-oids (37.9%, prednisone mean dose 4.12 ± 8 mg/day), cDMARDs (75.7%), bDMARDs (18.2%): Rituximab (58.3%) and anti TNF (25%). Sixteen patients (24.2%) had previous COVID19 (75% mild symptoms). The vaccines applied were: AstraZeneca 38.2%, Sinopharm 31.7%, Sputnik V 19%, and combined schedule Sputnik V/Moderna in 11%. At baseline, 28.8% had detectable anti-S-RBD IgG antibodies. This frequency increased to 48.4% at 1st dose and 70.2% at 2nd dose. The variables that were associated with lower sero-conversion rates and lower antibody titre were vaccination with Sinopharm (p 0.028) and treatment with bDMARDs (p 0.02), none of the 5 patients with Rituximab showed seroconversion. There were no significant differences in the levels of anti-S-RBD IgG antibodies between patients with SLE and the other rheumatic diseases. Patients who had SARS-CoV2 infection prior to vaccination had higher antibody titres in both T1 (p 0.006) and T2 (p 0.002) but after the two doses this difference was not significant (p 0.67). In the regression analysis, the variables that were independently associated with seroconversion were the type of vaccine applied at the 1st dose and the hypertensive disease. The chance of responding to vaccination was 13 and 9 times higher for those who received Sputnik V (OR 12.78;95% CI 1.46-315.9) or AstraZeneca (OR 8.61;95% CI 1.63-72.5) respectively, than Sinopharm in the 1st dose. The chance of being a responder was 88% lower for hypertensive patients (OR 0.12;95% CI 0.02-0.58). Conclusion: In this preliminary analysis, a seroconversion rate of 70.2% was associated with two-dose vaccination for SARS-CoV2 in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. There were no differences in the serological response between patients with SLE and other rheumatic diseases. The humoral immune response was lower in patients with bDMARDs and null in those who received Rituximab. Seroconversion and antibody titres levels were associated with the type of vaccine applied, being Sinopharm who presented the lowest response. The follow-up will provide more knowledge about the behaviour of the humoral response in our patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: In Argentina we have witnessed two COVID 19 waves between 2020 and 2021. The frst wave occurred during the spring of 2020 and it was related to the wild type of the virus, the second occurred during the fall/winter of 2021 when the gamma variant showed a clear predominance. During the frst wave, patient with rheumatic diseases showed a higher frequency of hospitaliza-tion and mortality (4% vs 0.26%) when compared to the general population1;at that time, however, vaccination was not yet available. Objectives: To compare sociodemographic and disease characteristics, course and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with immune-mediated/auto-infammatory diseases (IMADs) during the frst and second waves in Argentina. Methods: SAR-COVID is a national, multicenter, longitudinal and observational registry, in which patients ≥18 years of age, with a diagnosis of a rheumatic disease who had confrmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (RT-PCR or positive serol-ogy) were consecutively included since August 2020. For the purpose of this report, only patients with IMADs who had SARS-CoV-2 infection during the frst wave (defned as cases occurred between March 2020 and March 2021) and the second wave (cases occurred between April and August 2021) were examined. Sociodemographic characteristics, disease diagnosis and activity, comorbidities, immunosuppressive treatment and COVID 19 clinical characteristics, complications and outcomes: hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, use of mechanical ventilation and death were compared among groups. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Variables were compared with Chi squared test and Student T test or Mann Whitney test. Multivariable logistic regression models with forward and backward selection method, using hospitalization, ICU admission and death as dependent variables were carried out. Results: A total of 1777 patients were included, 1342 from the frst wave and 435 of the second one. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 50.7 (14.2) years and 81% were female. Both groups of patients were similar in terms of socio-de-mographic features, disease diagnosis, disease activity, the use of glucocorti-coids ≥ 10 mg/day and the immunosuppressive drugs (Table 1 below). Patients infected during the frst wave have higher frequency of comorbidities (49% vs 41%;p= 0.004). Hospitalizations due to COVID 19 (31% vs 20%;p <0.001) and ICU admissions (9% vs 5%;p= 0.009) were higher during the frst wave. No differences in the use of mechanical ventilation (16% vs 16%;p= 0.97) nor in the mortality rate (5% vs 4%;p= 0.41) were observed. In the multivariable analysis, after adjusting for demographics, clinical features and immunosup-pressive treatment, patients infected during the second wave were 40% less likely to be hospitalized (OR= 0.6, IC95% 0.4-0.8) and to be admitted to the ICU (OR= 0.6, IC95% 0.3-0.9). Conclusion: The impact of COVID 19 in Argentina, in terms of mortality in patients with IMADs was still higher compared to the general population during the second wave. However, the frequency of hospitalizations and ICU admissions was lower. These fndings could be explained by the introduction of the SARS COV 2 vaccination and, probably, by the cumulative knowledge and management improvement of this infection among physicians.
ABSTRACT
The role that technology plays in supporting children at school and at home is more prominent than ever before due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. This has prompted us to focus the 6th International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Children & Recommender and Information Retrieval Systems (KidRec) workshop on what the lasting changes will be to the design and development of child information retrieval systems. After two years, are information retrieval systems used more in and out of the classroom? Are they more interactive, more or less personalized? What is the impact on the research and business community? Are there long-term and unexpected changes on the design, ethics, and algorithms? The primary goal of our workshop continues to be to build community by bringing together researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders from various backgrounds and disciplines to understand and advance information retrieval systems for children. © 2022 Owner/Author.
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we examine the roles children play when using web search engines in the classroom context by revisiting, not replicating, a seminal work set in the home context. In particular, we describe how we juxtaposed performance indicators inferred from a combination of search logs (collected over two years) and expert grading of completed inquiry assignments to discern emerging search roles among children in primary four and five (aged 9 to 11). In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also explore differences when a traditional classroom is replaced by online instruction at home. Lastly, we discuss future research directions that we see as pivotal to advance research in Information Retrieval to and for children. © 2021 CEUR-WS. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
In the classroom, search tools enable students to access online resources. While these tools have many benefits in theory, in practice there are also ethical issues to consider. In this article, we discuss a number of ethics-related problems teachers are faced with and they need to find solutions for. Based on our own research experience developing and deploying information discovery tools for the classroom (both in a traditional classroom setting and on the Internet due to the ongoing outbreak of COVID-19), we share insights about ethics and the role of the expert-in-the-loop, teachers, both as co-design partners and liaisons between search tools and students. Furthermore, we introduce a set of guidelines, EMILIA, to assist teachers in recognizing and reflecting on ethical issues that arise from their use of search tools in the classroom. © 2021 The Authors
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To compare characteristics of patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 in Argentina (SAR-COVID Registry), in contrast to the data reported at the Latin American and global level (Global International Alliance RheumCOVID Registry). Methods: A national, multicenter, longitudinal and observational registry was carried out. Patients older than 18 years, with a diagnosis of rheumatic disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR or positive serology, were included between August 13, 2020 and April 11, 2021. Demographic data, underlying rheumatic disease, comorbidities, clinical-laboratory characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as treatments and outcomes. Characteristics of the patients included were compared with the data reported at the Latin American and global level. Descriptive statistics were performed. Comparisons between groups were made using ANOVA, chi2 or Fisher's test. Results: 863 patients from Argentina, 74 patients from Latin America and 583 from the rest of the world were included, mostly women in the three groups (79.4%, 73% and 71% respectively). The most frequent rheumatic diseases in the three groups were rheumatoid arthritis (45.8%, 35%, and 39%, respectively) and systemic lupus erythematosus (18%, 22%, and 14%) (Table 1). In Argentina, fewer patients received specific pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 in relation to the other 2 groups (41.4%, 68% and 43% respectively, p < 0.0001), and there was a lower requirement for non-invasive/invasive mechanical ventilation than in the rest of Latin America and theworld (8.6%vs 31% vs 13%, p < 0.0001). Hospitalization requirement in Argentina was lower than in the rest of Latin America and the rest of theworld (32.8%vs 61% vs 45%, p < 0.0001), as well as mortality (5.8%, 12%and 11%;p 0.0010). 86.9% of patients did not present any complications in Argentina, with a statistically significant difference with the rest of the groups (62% and 77%, with p < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Conclusion: Patients with rheumatic diseases and SARS-CoV-2 infection from Argentina reported in this registry received less specific pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 than those registered in other countries, presented fewer complications and required less ventilatory support. In relation to mortality, although a lower mortality was found in the Argentine registry. The fact that registries have information collected at different periods of the pandemic and different local epidemiological situations, does not allow major conclusions to be drawn.