RESUMEN
BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis, including either Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), are some of the most diagnosed autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) in rheumatologists' routine clinical practice [1]. Understanding patients' health and functional status is crucial to provide personalized management strategies to optimize disease control and enhance the quality of life.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare disease burden in patients with RA, PsA or AS by assessing Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Health, Global Mental Health, Physical Function and Fatigue 4a together with VAS Pain.MethodsData were obtained in the international COVID vaccination in autoimmune rheumatic diseases study second e-survey (COVAD study). Demographics, AIRD diagnosis, disease activity, PROMIS Global Physical health, PROMIS Global Mental Health, PROMIS Physical Function SF10 and PROMIS Fatigue 4a score were extracted from the COVAD study database. For this study, we only included patients with self-reported RA or spondyloarthritis (either PsA or AS) undergoing active treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs) and/or biologic DMARDs, who answered all the survey questions. Active disease was defined as the patient's perception of their disease as active in the four weeks before their first COVID-19 vaccine shot. Analysis of Variance with Bartlett's and Tukey's test was used to compare continuous variables between groups.ResultsFrom January to June 2022, n.1907 patients with RA, female 87.62% (1671/1907), with mean age (±SD) 50.95 ±13.67, n.311 patients with PsA, female 67.20% (209/311), with a mean age of 50.42 ±12.70, and n.336 patients with AS, male 51.31% (209/311), with a mean age of 43.13 ±12.75 years, responded to the COVAD e-survey.In those with active disease, neither physical health, global mental health, physical function, fatigue, nor pain were different among groups (Table 1, Figure 1). Patients with inactive AS had higher mean global physical health scores than RA patients (13.13 ±2.93 VS RA 12.48 ±2.90, p=0.01, Table 1). Those with inactive RA or PsA showed more severe fatigue (PsA 10.58 ±2.22, RA 10.45 ±4.08 VS 9.4 ±4.13, p =0.01 for both). Patients with inactive RA also reported poorer physical function and more residual pain than those with AS (37.79 ±8.86 VS 41.13 ±7.79, p<0.001;3.87 ±2.45 VS 3.34 ±2.39, p=0.01, respectively). Similarly, residual pain was perceived as higher in patients with inactive PsA than those with AS (4.04 ±2.50 VS 3.34 ±2.39, p=0.01)ConclusionDisease burden is roughly comparable in patients with active RA, PsA or AS. Patients with inactive RA and PsA suffer higher disease burden than those with inactive AS.Reference[1]Mease PJ, Liu M, Rebello S, Kang H, Yi E, Park Y, Greenberg JD. Comparative Disease Burden in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, or Axial Spondyloarthritis: Data from Two Corrona Registries. Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Dec;6(4):529-542.Table 1.Patient-Reported Outcome Measures between groups.Inactive diseaseAS (n.185)PsA (n.179)RA (n.1167)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDPROMIS Global Physical Health13.13*2.9512.433.2712.482.90p=0.01, VS RAPROMIS Global Mental Health13.313.3612.973.3312.843.17PROMIS Fatigue 4a9.44.1310.58*4.2210.45*4.08p=0.01, bothPROMIS Physical Function SF10 Score41.137.3939.279.0137.79*8.86p<0.001, VS ASVAS Pain3.342.394.04*2.503.87*2.45p=0.01, bothActive DiseaseAS (n.35)PsA (n.38)RA (n.189)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDPROMIS Global Physical Health11.053.1910.102.7611.243.41PROMIS Global Mental Health11.313.2610.843.6311.893.30PROMIS Fatigue 4a12.944.8712.844.4211.754.68PROMIS Physical Function SF10 Score35.829.6233.528.7634.909.80VAS Pain4.682.775.02.544.682.61Figure 1.Violin plots showing kernel densities, quartiles and median for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for patients with RA, PsA and AS, stratified by disease activity status.[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsVincenzo Venerito: None declared, Marc Fornaro: None declared, Florenzo Iannone: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited., Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Sreoshy Saha: None declared, Syahrul Sazliyana Shaharir: None declared, Wanruchada Katchamart: None declared, Phonpen Akarawatcharangura Goo: None declared, Lisa Traboco: None declared, Yi-Ming Chen: None declared, Parikshit Sen: None declared, James B. Lilleker Speakers bureau: JBL has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. None is related to this manuscript., Consultant of: JBL has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. None is related to this manuscript., Arvind Nune: None declared, John Pauling: None declared, Chris Wincup: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre;none are related to this manuscript, Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre;none are related to this manuscript, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Carlo Vinicio Caballero: None declared, COVAD Study: None declared, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Speakers bureau: RA has a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant., Grant/research support from: RA has a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant., Latika Gupta: None declared.
RESUMEN
BackgroundAlthough many studies have been conducted on COVID-19 in recent years, there are still unanswered questions regarding breakthrough infections (BTIs), particularly in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine the occurrence of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in patients with SLE versus other autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs), and healthy controls (HCs).MethodsThe study was based on data from the COVAD questionnaire which amassed a total of 10,783 complete responses from patients with SLE, AIRD, or nrAIRD, and HCs. After exclusion of individuals who were unvaccinated, those who received one vaccine dose only, and those with uncertain responses regarding the vaccine doses, a total of 9,595 patients formed the study population of the present investigation. If a COVID-19 infection occurred after the initial two vaccine doses and at least one booster dose (at least three doses in total, herein termed full vaccination), it was considered a BTI. Data were analysed using multivariable regression models. Statistically significant results were denoted by p values <0.05.ResultsA total of 7,016/9,595 (73.1%) individuals were fully vaccinated. Among those, 1,002 (14.2%) reported at least one BTI, and 166 (2.3%) reported at least two BTIs. Among SLE patients, 867/1,218 (71.2%) were fully vaccinated. Among fully vaccinated SLE patients, 137 (15.8%) reported at least one BTI while 28 (3.2%) reported at least two BTIs. BTI frequencies in fully vaccinated SLE patients were comparable to those of other AIRDs (OR: 1.0;95% CI: 0.8–1.3;p=0.447) and nrAIDS (OR: 0.9;95% CI: 0.6–1.3;p=0.856) but higher compared with HCs (OR: 1.2;95% CI: 1.0–1.6;p=0.022).For SLE patients with three vaccine doses, 113/137 (82.5%) reported at least one BTI while the corresponding number for four vaccine doses was 24/137 (17.5%). Compared with HCs (OR: 10.6;95% CI: 1.2–93.0;p=0.032) and other AIRDs (OR: 3.5;95% CI: 1.08–11.5;p=0.036), SLE patients showed higher frequencies of hospitalisation.AID multimorbidity was associated with a 15-fold increased risk for a need of advanced treatment for COVID-19 (OR: 15.3;95% CI: 2.6–88.2;p=0.002).ConclusionCOVID-19 BTIs occurred in nearly 1 every 6th fully vaccinated patient with SLE, and 20% more frequently in this patient population compared with fully vaccinated HCs. Moreover, BTIs in SLE patients were more severe compared with BTIs in HCs or patients with AIRDs other than SLE, resulting in a greater need for hospitalisation. AID multimorbidity contributed to a more severe COVID-19 BTI requiring advanced management. These insights call for greater attention to vaccination in the vulnerable group of SLE patients, with appropriate risk stratification towards optimised vaccination strategies.Figure 1.Survival analysis across patients with SLE, AIRDs, or nrAIDs, and HCs. SLE: systemic lupus erythematosus;AIRD: autoimmune rheumatic disease;nrAID: non-rheumatic autoimmune disease;HC: healthy control.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all survey respondents, as well as patient associations and all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsEmelie Kihlgren Olsson: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly., Consultant of: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly., Grant/research support from: EN holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly., Julius Lindblom: None declared, Sreoshy Saha: None declared, Syahrul Sazliyana Shaharir: None declared, Wanruchada Katchamart: None declared, Phonpen Akarawatcharangura Goo: None declared, Lisa Traboco: None declared, Yi-Ming Chen: None declared, Kshitij Jagtap: None declared, James B. Lilleker Speakers bureau:
RESUMEN
Background: COVID-19 vaccines are safe & effective, though patients with rheumatic diseases like idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIMs), and those with multiple comorbidities continue to be hesitant. Adverse events after vaccination are not extensively studied in those with multiple coexisting autoimmune diseases. Patients with IIM often have multiple autoimmune rheumatic and autoimmune non-rheumatic comorbidities (IIM-AIDs), with potentially increased risk of AEs. The COVAD study aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs till 7 days post-vaccination in IIM-AIDs compared to IIMs and healthy controls (HCs) group. Method(s): T he C OVAD s tudy g roup c omprised > 110 c ollaborators across 94 countries. The study was conducted from March-December 2021. A survey monkey platform-based self-reported online survey captured data related to COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs in IIMs, AIDs, and HCs. We compared COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs among IIM-AID patients and IIM alone and HCs, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, vaccine type, immunosuppression, and numbers of AIDs, using binary logistic regression. Statistically significant results following multivariate regression are reported. Result(s): Among 6099 participants, 1387 (22.7%) IIM, 4712 (77.2%) HC, 66.3% females, were included from 18 882 respondents: 573 (41.0%) people with IIM-AIDs;814 (59.0%) with IIM without other AIDs;and 4712 HCs. People with IIM were older [median 54 (45-66) IIM-AIDs, 64 (50-73) IIM, 34 (26-47) HC years, P < 0.001]. BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (37.5%) and ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (Oxford) (11.1%) were the most common vaccines. When compared to IIM alone, IIM-AID patients reported higher overall AEs [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.1)], minor AE [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.1)] &major AE [OR 3 (1.5-5.8)]. IIM-AIDs patients also reported higher body ache, nausea, headache, & fatigue (OR ranging 1.3-2.3). After adjusting for the number of AIDs, the major AEs equalized but overall AEs, & minor AEs, such as fatigue remained higher. When compared to HCs, IIM-AIDs patients reported similar overall AEs, minor AEs but higher major AEs [OR 2 (1.2-3.3)] nausea/ vomiting [OR 1.4 (1.01-2)], headache [OR 1.2 (1.01-1.6)], and fatigue [OR 1.3 (1.03-1.6)]. Dermatomyositis with AIDs (n = 183) reported higher major AEs [OR 4.3 (1.5-12)] compared to DM alone (n = 293). Active IIM with AIDs (n = 482) reported higher overall AEs [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.2)], minor AEs [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.2)] and major AEs [OR 2.6 (1.2-5.2)] compared to active IIM alone (n = 643). Conclusion(s): COVID-19 vaccination is safe with minimal to no risks of short-term AEs in patients with IIM without other concomitant autoimmune diseases. The presence of autoimmune multimorbidity conferred higher self-reported short-term risks of overall, major, and minor COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs 7 days post-vaccination, particularly in those with active IIM.
RESUMEN
Telemedicine was accelerated in adoption in low to middle-income countries because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Institutions and societies new to this modality released recommendations that extrapolate from Western practices or more developed regions of Asia. Besides cultural differences, many areas do not have similar staffing set up as in the West. Many doctors provide direct to patient telemedicine. Framing telemedicine as part of hybrid care instead of a competitor to in-person care may be key for telemedicine to secure its place in healthcare. We would need to examine workflows that may help us in this endeavor. Infographics is short for information graphics. They are digital tools used to enhance education, improve memory, and comprehension, and develop new communication skills. In pandemic remote care studies, surgeons use infographics to teach patients post op wound care at home. How about medical photography? Medical photography has been used as a prehospital assessment for ER cases. In some dermatology studies, photos are used as a form of triage to avoid unnecessary in-person consults. Orthopedic surgeons use photography to assess post op range of motion. One psoriatic arthritis study incorporated photography as a pre-visit screening with staff members assisting patients. With the advances in personal smartphone technology, is there a role for patients or caregivers themselves to use medical photography in telemedicine? Since many clinics may not have adequate staff members, a simple instruction guide on lighting, framing and technique could be used for patients to take their own photos and then send it to their doctors prior to their telemedicine visit. We take a look at the studies on medical photography and the possibility of incorporating it to our own telemedicine workflow. In addition, we would present out proposal for a mixed method study using a simplified infographic for patients to copy pre-visit.
RESUMEN
Background: Telemedicine became the emergent means of providing and continuing medical care due to the COVID 19 pandemic. This study aims to evaluate the knowledge, perception, and satisfaction with the use of telemedicine among patients with rheumatic diseases. An understanding of our patients' experiences can be utilized to provide access to care, improve gaps in delivery of care, and improve healthcare disparities. Method(s): Filipino patients with rheumatic disease who had telehealth visits between June 2020 and August 2021 in St Luke's Medical Center Outpatient Department participated in an online survey. Information on demographics, diagnosis, knowledge and experience on telemedicine, and perspectives on benefits and limitations of telemedicine were collected. Result(s): There were 70 respondents: 52.9% with SLE, 25.7% with RA, 10% with osteoarthritis, 5.7% with psoriatic arthritis, 2.9% with scleroderma. Results showed that 64.3% are familiar with the use of video conference platforms. Facebook messenger was the most used (85.7%). Half of respondents have used telemedicine on their own, while 33% required assistance. The remaining respondents have not used telemedicine due to lack of experience or awareness on how to proceed with consults. The reasons for using telemedicine were restrictions of the pandemic (82.9%), limited access to clinics (31.4%), and disability (1.4%). Most remain satisfied with telemedicine (75.7%), 50% of patients stated that telemedicine was comparable to an in-clinic visit, and 85.7% (N = 60) would recommend its use. Conclusion(s): Filipinos with rheumatic disease are knowledgeable on online platforms and telemedicine, however, it is important to note the digital divide. Patients need assistance and improved awareness on accessing remote care. Providing continuity of healthcare can lead to less complications and better outcomes despite pandemic restrictions. There is an overall favorable satisfaction for care. Half the respondents remain satisfied with telemedicine. Rheumatologists need further studies on benefits and outcomes on providing remote healthcare.