RESUMEN
Background/Aims The impact of the pandemic on the incidence and management of inflammatory arthritis (IA) is not understood. Routinely-captured data in secure platforms, such as OpenSAFELY, offer unique opportunities to understand how IA was impacted upon by the pandemic. Our objective was to use OpenSAFELY to assess the effects of the pandemic on diagnostic incidence and care delivery for IA in England, and replicate key metrics from the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we used primary care and hospital data for 17 million adults registered with general practices using TPP health record software, to explore the following outcomes between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022: 1) incidence of IA diagnoses (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, undifferentiated IA) recorded in primary care;2) time to first rheumatology assessment;3) time to first prescription of a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) in primary care, and choice of first csDMARD. Results From 17,683,500 adults (representing 40% of the English population), there were 31,280 incident IA diagnoses recorded between April 2019 and March 2022. New IA diagnoses decreased by 39.7% in the early months of the pandemic. Overall, a 20.3% decrease in IA diagnoses was seen in the year commencing April 2020, relative to the preceding year (5.1 vs. 6.4 diagnoses per 10,000 adults, respectively). Further decreases coincided with rising COVID-19 numbers, before returning to pre-pandemic levels by the end of the study period. No rebound increase in IA incidence was observed as of April 2022. The median time from referral to first rheumatology assessment was shorter during the pandemic (18 days;IQR 8-35 days) than before (21 days;9-41 days). The proportion of patients prescribed csDMARDs in primary care was comparable to before the pandemic;however, fewer people were prescribed methotrexate or leflunomide, and more were prescribed sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine. Conclusion IA diagnoses decreased markedly during the early phase of the pandemic;however, the impact on rheumatology assessment times and DMARD prescribing was less marked than might have been anticipated. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using routinelycaptured, near real-time data in the secure OpenSAFELY platform to benchmark care quality on a national scale, without the need for manual data collection.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Registry data suggest that people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) receiving targeted systemic therapies have fewer adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes compared with patients receiving no systemic treatments. OBJECTIVES: We used international patient survey data to explore the hypothesis that greater risk-mitigating behaviour in those receiving targeted therapies may account, at least in part, for this observation. METHODS: Online surveys were completed by individuals with psoriasis (globally) or rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) (UK only) between 4 May and 7 September 2020. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between treatment type and risk-mitigating behaviour, adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics. We characterized international variation in a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Of 3720 participants (2869 psoriasis, 851 RMDs) from 74 countries, 2262 (60·8%) reported the most stringent risk-mitigating behaviour (classified here under the umbrella term 'shielding'). A greater proportion of those receiving targeted therapies (biologics and Janus Kinase inhibitors) reported shielding compared with those receiving no systemic therapy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·35-1·97]. The association between targeted therapy and shielding was preserved when standard systemic therapy was used as the reference group (OR 1·39, 95% CI 1·23-1·56). Shielding was associated with established risk factors for severe COVID-19 [male sex (OR 1·14, 95% CI 1·05-1·24), obesity (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·23-1·54), comorbidity burden (OR 1·43, 95% CI 1·15-1·78)], a primary indication of RMDs (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·27-1·48) and a positive anxiety or depression screen (OR 1·57, 95% CI 1·36-1·80). Modest differences in the proportion shielding were observed across nations. CONCLUSIONS: Greater risk-mitigating behaviour among people with IMIDs receiving targeted therapies may contribute to the reported lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. The behaviour variation across treatment groups, IMIDs and nations reinforces the need for clear evidence-based patient communication on risk-mitigation strategies and may help inform updated public health guidelines as the pandemic continues.