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/Aims The impact of dealing with COVID-19 for rheumatology higher specialist trainees has been profound. Sacrifices were made to their training to support the UK's pandemic response. Virtual Reality (VR) has long been used as a solution for specific surgical skills;providing a hands-on experience to enable specific delivery of outcomes. We utilised existing technology alongside a specialist VR and haptics team to review ways at delivering a valid and reliable training tool to administer joint injections, beginning with the review of this procedure specific to the knee. We aimed to describe this process. Methods A qualitative study using focus groups was undertaken, one medical student, four higher specialty trainees and two consultants were convened in a focus group to review existing mannequin-based training with the purpose of identifying a skill to develop in virtual reality. A story board was developed through collaboration with a graphic designer. The scenario was imbedded into a virtual reality environment in collaboration with a virtual reality partner. Results The focus group identified intra-articular knee injection as the most appropriate rheumatology skill to develop. Storyboarding built a series of scenarios around clinical situations which would require injection or aspiration. Working with the engineering team we successfully mapped knee joint anatomy and rendered an authentic clinical environment for the storyboards to run inside. Conclusion Virtual reality training scenarios are complex to develop but have enormous potential to create immersive training and assessment experiences which are not boundaried by the challenges of social distancing and COVID-19 risks.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims Patients with inflammatory arthritis were identified as a potentially vulnerable group during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recommendations from the UK government to shield. We set out to describe the risks of COVID-19 according to initial treatment strategy amongst patients recruited to the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA). Methods NEIAA is an observational cohort design. It includes adults in England with a new diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis between May 2018 and March 2021. The outcomes of interest were death due to COVID-19 (COVID-19 stated on a death certificate) and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (primary admission reason or nosocomial acquisition), identified using NHS Digital linkage. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios, with adjustment for patient factors (age, gender, smoking status, comorbidity) and disease factors (seropositivity, disease severity (DAS28), patient-reported disability (HAQ) and functional impact (MSK-HQ)) recorded at baseline. Individuals were considered at risk from February 2020 or date of diagnosis (whichever was later) and censored at a COVID-19 event, May 2021 or death (whichever was sooner). Results 14,127 patients were included. Mean age was 57 (+/-16);62% were female. Smoking status: 19% current;29% ex-smokers. Comorbidities: 19% hypertension;9% diabetes;and 9% lung disease. Overall, 20% had two or more comorbidities. Rheumatoid Factor or CCP antibodies were positive in 56%. At presentation, mean scores were 4.6 (+/-1.5) for DAS28, 1.1 (+/-0.7) for HAQ and 25 (+/-11) for MSK-HQ. Initial DMARD therapy was known for 13,682/14,127 patients;methotrexate was most common (54%), then hydroxychloroquine (23%) and sulfasalazine (11%). There were 143 COVID-19 hospital admissions and 47 deaths, corresponding to incidence rates per 100 person-years for hospitalisation: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.79-1.10) and death: 0.31 (95% CI: 0.23-0.41). Increasing age, male gender, diabetes, hypertension, lung disease and smoking status all predicted COVID-19 events. Higher baseline DAS28 predicted COVID-19 admission (HR 1.24 (95% CI: 1.10-1.39)) and mortality (HR 1.33 (95% CI: 1.09-1.63)). Higher HAQ predicted both COVID-19 admission and death. Seropositivity was not a significant predictor of any COVID- 19 event, nor was MSK-HQ. Unadjusted, corticosteroids associated with COVID-19 death (HR 2.29 (95% CI: 1.02-5.13)), and sulfasalazine monotherapy associated with COVID-19 admission (HR 1.93 (95% CI: 1.04-3.56)). In adjusted models, associations for corticosteroids and sulfasalazine were no longer significant. Only age, smoking status, and comorbidities independently predicted COVID-19 events. Conclusion The burden of COVID-19 amongst early arthritis patients was substantial during the pandemic. Patient characteristics and rheumatoid disease severity at diagnosis appear to be the more important predictors of COVID-19 events than initial treatment strategy. An important limitation is that we have not looked at treatment changes over time, and must acknowledge that many patients, especially those recruited in 2019, may have changed therapy prior to the pandemic.
RESUMEN
Based on its quasi-predictable genetic markers, we urgently promoted vaccination, stocked up on Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-waived test kits, and prescribed antiviral medications for patients and their families to protect our communities and reduce the potential for spread. When discussing COVID-19 infection with families, pediatricians will often include a caution for the infrequent possibility for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), but probably the most common and actionable concern is cardiac, especially for adolescent athletes. Since June 2020, there have also been several reported cases of MIS in adults3). Email them to llevine@mjhlifesciences.com О For references and additional resources, go to ContemporaryPediatrics.com/ crossover-symptoms-COVID-19influenza Russell Libby is founder and president of the Virginia Pediatric Group in Fairfax, Virginia;assistant clinical professor of pediatrics atthe University of Virginia and George Washington University schools of medicine;a board member of the Physicians Foundation;and a member of the Contemporary Pediatrics® Editorial Advisory Board.
RESUMEN
No aspect of pediatric medicine has been as impactful on the health and wellbeing of our patients and communities as the vaccines that now routinely prevent 16 diseases that were once commonplace.1 Current vaccines include those based on live attenuated viruses (eg, varicella, rotovirus), killed whole organism (eg, rabies, hepatitis A), polysaccharide or native proteins (eg, pneumococcal, meningococcal), and recombinant or whole molecular modification (eg, hepatitis B, herpes zoster). Many of these are directed at infectious diseases, but many novel vaccines are being developed to treat or prevent allergies, autoimmune disorders, cancers, and even Alzheimer's disease.1 Following the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2012, both deadly coronavirus infections, investigators spent subsequent years developing and perfecting innovative vaccines including adenovirus vector vaccines and messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines. [...]Altimmune has developed an adenovirus-vectored intranasal vaccine, now in phase I clinical trials, that generates a broad IgG, mucosal IgA, and Tcell response to SARS-CoV-2 and is stable at room temperature.5 Altimmune is also in clinical trials for intranasal vaccines for anthrax and influenza.
RESUMEN
Government funding for immunization registries became available when President Bill Clinton included immunization registries in his Childhood Immunization Initiative in 1993.1 There are currently 63 registries, now called immunization information systems (IlSs), in the United States. IISs have many advantages;they can improve immunization rates, reduce vaccination errors, identify opportunities to vaccinate, provide epidemiological insights when there is a community outbreak of a vaccine-preventable disease, and allow access by patients, families, schools, and other health care providers. There are federal requirements for documenting vaccines established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which includes the specific vaccine, manufacturer, lot number, the date and location, and that the patient and/or family was given a vaccine information statement (VIS) to review with its publication date.3 Most IISs will permit noting if the vaccine was refused and the description of any adverse reactions.