RESUMEN
BackgroundThe presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) has been observed in patients with COVID-19 (1,2), suggesting that they may be associated with deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or stroke in severe cases (3). Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disorder and the most common form of acquired thrombophilia globally. At least one clinical criterion, vascular thrombosis (arterial, venous or microthrombosis) or pregnancy morbidity and at least one laboratory criterion- positive aPL two times at least 12 weeks apart: lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), anti-β2-glycoprotein 1 (anti-β2GPI) antibody, have to be met for international APS classification criteria(4). Several reports also associate anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) with APS.ObjectivesTo combine clinical data on arterial/venous thrombosis and pregnancy complications before and during hospitalisation with aPL laboratory findings at 4 time points (hospital admission, worsening of COVID-19, hospital discharge, and follow-up) in patients with the most severe forms of COVID-19 infection.MethodsPatients with COVID-19 pneumonia were consequetively enrolled, as they were admitted to the General hospital Pancevo. Exclusion criteria were previous diagnosis of inflammatory rheumatic disease and diagnosis of APS. Clinical data were obtained from the medical records. Laboratory results, including LA, aCL, anti-β2GPI, and aPS/PT antibodies were taken at hospital admission, worsening (defined as cytokine storm, connection of the patient to the respirator, use of the anti-IL-6 drug- Tocilizumab), at hospital discharge and at 3-months follow-up and sent to University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia for analysis. Statistics was performed by using SPSS 21.Results111 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were recruited;7 patients died during hospitalisation (none were aPL-positive on admission and at the time of worsening), 3 due to pulmonary artery embolism. All patients were treated according to a predefined protocol which included antibiotics, corticosteroids, anticoagulation therapy and specific comorbidity drugs;patients with hypoxia were supported with oxygen. During hospitalisation, pulmonary artery thrombosis occurred in 5 patients, one was aPL-positive at all time points (was diagnosed with APS), others were negative. In addition, 9/101 patients had a history of thrombosis (5 arterial thrombosis (coronary and cerebral arteries), none of whom was aPL-positive on admission and at follow-up, and 4 venous thrombosis, one of which was aPL-positive at all time points and received an APS diagnosis). Among 9/101 patients with a history of thrombosis, 55.6% were transiently positive at the time of discharge, compared to patients without prior thrombosis, in whom 26.1% were transiently positive at the hospital release (p=0.074). Two patients had a history of pregnancy complications (both had miscarriage after 10th week of gestation), but did not have aPL positivity at any time point.ConclusionAlthough aPL was expected to be associated with vascular disease in the most severe forms of COVID-19, all patients that have died in our cohort were aPL negative. At hospital discharge, 56% of patients with a history of arterial or venous thrombosis had positive aPL that became negative at the 3-months follow-up (were transienlty positive), which should be considered when prescribing therapy after hospitalisation.References[1]Trahtemberg U, Rottapel R, Dos Santos CC, et al. Anticardiolipin and other antiphospholipid antibodies in critically ill COVID-19 positive and negative patients. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2021;80:1236-1240.[2]Stelzer M, Henes J, Saur S. The Role of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in COVID-19. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2021;23(9):72-4.[3]Xie Y, Wang X, Yang P, Zhang S. COVID-19 complicated by acute pulmonary embolism. Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging 2020: 2: e200067.[4]Miyakis S, Lockshin MD, Atsumi T, Branch DW, Brey RL, et al. J.Thromb.Haemost. 2006;4: 295-306.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of nterestsNone Declared.
RESUMEN
BackgroundCOVID-19 infection has revealed a considerable number of extra-pulmonary manifestations, especially rheumatological. The detection of these manifestations, which herald the infection, is of great value in the early diagnosis of the disease, especially in health care workers (HCWs) who are at considerable risk of infection. Although myalgia is a common clinical feature of COVID-19, other musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) have been rarely described.ObjectivesTo describe MSDs during SARS-COV2 infection in HCWs.MethodsProspective descriptive study conducted at the department of occupational pathology and fitness for work of Charles Nicolle Hospital in Tunis, having included the HCWs affected by COVID-19 during the period from 01 September 2020 to 28 February 2021. Data collection was carried out by regular telephone follow-up during the containment period using a pre-established form.ResultsDuring the study period, 656 HCWs were infected with SARS COV 2, of whom 134 (20.4%) had at least one musculoskeletal event. The mean age was 42±9 years with a sex ratio (M/F) of 0.2. The most represented occupational category was nurses (33.6%) followed by health technicians (23.1%). The median professional length of service was 12 [7;20] years. The presence of comorbidity was noted in 58.2% of HCWs. A pre-existing osteoarticular disease was found in 8.2% of cases. Obesity was noted in 25.4% of the population. Active smoking was reported by 14.3% of respondents. A known vitamin D deficiency was noted in 16.5% of patients. Spinal pain was the most reported MSD, present in 87.3% of cases. Low back pain was the most frequent spinal pain (56.7%) followed by back pain (37.4%) and neck pain (5.9%). MSDs of the lower limbs were found in 12.7% of patients. They were represented by gonalgia in 11.9% of cases, ankle pain in 5.2% of cases and hip pain in 4.3% of cases. MSDs of the upper limbs were described by 7.5% of the patients, 92.5% of whom presented with shoulder pain. The median duration of MSDs during COVID-19 was 5 [3;8] days. These manifestations were persistent on return to work in 21.1% of cases.ConclusionKnowledge of the frequency and consequences of musculoskeletal manifestations related to COVID-19 infection is of great importance, particularly in HCWs, in order to optimise management and ensure a rapid return to work.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
RESUMEN
BackgroundSARS-CoV-2(Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) has been circulating worldwide for three years. It mainly causes upper respiratory tract infection, which can manifest as pulmonary infection and even respiratory distress syndrome in severe cases. Different autoantibodies can be detected in patients infected with COVID-19.ObjectivesTo explore autoantibodies related to rheumatic diseases after COVID-19 infection.MethodsNinety-eight inpatients were tested for antinuclear antibodies (ANA), antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens(ENA), anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies（ANCA), anticardiolipin antibodies,a-β2GPI (IgG/IgM). They were from a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou during the COVID-19 epidemic. Data were described statistically.ResultsNinety-eight hospitalized patients were tested for relevant antibodies. The average age was 50.64±19.54;67 (68.4%) were male, 64 (65.3%) were COVID-19 positive, 90 (90.9%) had rheumatic diseases, and 56 of them were COVID-19 positive patients with rheumatic diseases.There were 76 patients tested for antinuclear antibodies;29 （38.16%）were negative, 18 （23.68%）had a 1/80 titre, and 29（28.16%） had a titre greater than 1:80. The 31 covid patients were positive for ANA. In the high-titer group, 19 patients with rheumatic diseases were positive for COVID-19, and 12 patients had an exacerbation of the rheumatic diseases (6 of whom had previously had pulmonary fibrosis). Of 31 covid patients, only two were non-rheumatic patients, and both were elderly, aged 85 and 100, respectively.Fifty-six patients had ENA results, and 29 for positive antibodies, 8 for ds-DNA antibodies, 2 for anti-Sm antibodies, 6 for anti-nucleosome antibodies, 12 for anti-U1RNP antibodies, 2 for anti-Scl-70 antibodies, 12 for anti-SS-A antibodies, 3 for anti-mitochondrial M2 antibodies, 2 for anti-centromere antibodies, 1 for anti-Po antibodies, and one for anti-Jo-1 antibody. All 56 patients had rheumatic diseases, and no new patients were found.There were 62 patients with ANCA data. P-ANCA was positive in 12 cases(19.35%), and MPO-ANCA was positive in 2 cases. An 85-year-old non-rheumatic COVID-19 patient was P-ANCA positive. She had a history of hypertension, colon cancer, CKD3, coronary heart disease, and atrial flutter.In the anticardiolipin antibodies group, there were 62 patients;only 6 were positive, and 2 were rheumatic patients infected with COVID-19. Antiphospholipid antibodies were detected in 33 patients, and a-β2GPI was tested in one patient, an 82-year-old COVID-19 patient with gout, diabetes, and cerebral infarction in the past. We did not find a statistical difference in the above results.ConclusionWe have not found a correlation between SARS-CoV-2 and serum autoantibodies of rheumatic immune diseases. It needs large samples and an extended follow-up to research.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by Scientific and Technological Planning Project of Guangzhou City [202102020150], Guangdong Provincial Basic and Applied Basic Research Fund Project [2021A1515111172], National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Fund [82201998] and Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University Cultivating Special Fund Project for National Natural Science Foundation of China [2022GZRPYQN01].Disclosure of Interestsone declared.
RESUMEN
BackgroundIn inflammatory arthritis patients, the concomitant decline of their mental wellbeing is an increasing concern[1,2]. It is important to not only describe the trajectory of psychological distress in early disease stages, but also understand which clinical outcome measures are most associated with these changes.ObjectivesUsing data from the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA), we assessed trends in psychological wellbeing over 12 months after initial diagnosis and mapped these against clinical outcomes to identify significant associations.MethodsNEIAA collects data from patients referred with suspected early inflammatory arthritis in rheumatology services in England and Wales. We used data provided by 20,472 patients eligible for follow-up (diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis) between May 1st, 2018, and April 1st, 2022. Data items included baseline demographics e.g., age and gender, and clinical variables e.g., rheumatic disease comorbidity index (RDCI), DAS28, and patient reported outcomes.Psychological distress was measured by the sum score of Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Screener (PHQ4ADS). Using mixed effects regression models, we analysed the co-variability of PHQ4ADS with demographic factors and clinical outcomes over 12 months. Time was included as a dummy-coded covariant.ResultsThe analysis included 36% of patients (7,378 out of 20,472) who completed the baseline patient outcome survey. In this cohort, PHQ4ADS scores decreased from a baseline average of 4.7 (CI: [4.6, 4.8]) to 2.62 (CI: [2.5, 2.8]) at 12 months post-diagnosis. The proportion of patients screening positive decreased from 50.0% (CI: [48.9, 51.1]) at baseline to 23.8% (CI: [21.8, 25.9]) at 12 months.At baseline, psychological distress correlated significantly with age, gender, ethnicity, RDCI, prior depression diagnosis, and baseline DAS28 (Figure 1). No significant correlations were found between psychological distress and working diagnosis, seropositivity, or the assessment being recorded after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Younger ages were nonlinearly associated with higher distress levels (coefficient per decade: -0.006;p<0.001;CI: [-0.009, -0.003]) (Figure 1a). Distress levels in females were higher than that of males (coefficient: 0.5;p<0.001;CI: [0.4, 0.7]) (Figure 1b). White patients reported lower PHQ4ADS scores compared to non-white patients (coefficient: -0.7;p<0.001;CI: [-1.0, -0.4]) (Figure 1c). Higher distress levels were also associated with higher RDCI (coefficient: 0.2;p<0.001;CI: [0.1, 0.3]) and prior diagnosis of depression (coefficient: 1.8;p<0.001;CI: [1.5, 2.2]) (Figure 1d, 1e). Furthermore, higher baseline DAS28 scores correlated with more severe psychological distress (coefficient: 0.8;p<0.001;CI: [0.7, 0.8]) (Figure 1f).By 12-months, psychological distress decreased significantly overall, which correlated significantly with ethnicity (coefficient: 0.8;p=0.005;CI: [0.3, 1.4]) and baseline DAS28 (coefficient: -0.5;p<0.001;CI: [-0.6, -0.4]). Compared to white patients, the reduction was significantly greater for non-white patients, but the level of distress was no longer different at 12 months (Figure 1c). While those with higher baseline DAS28 showed a greater reduction in psychological distress, the distress levels remained higher at 12 months (Figure 1f).Figure 1.Changes in psychological distress correlated with age, gender, ethnicity, RDCI, prior depression diagnosis, and baseline DAS28.[Figure omitted. See PDF]ConclusionIn this early inflammatory arthritis cohort, mental health burden was high. Age, gender, ethnicity, RDCI, prior depression diagnosis and baseline DAS28 significantly correlated with psychological distress at baseline. Supporting mental health should be a focus of clinical care for this population and it may be beneficial to use an approach that is culturally valid for non-white patients and accounts for multimorbidity.References[1]Euesden, J, et al. Psychosomatic medicine 79.6 (2017): 638.[2]Lwin, MN, et al. Rheumatology and therapy 7.3 (2020): 457-471.AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) as the commisioner of NEIAA, British Society for Rheumatology as the audit providers, Net Solving as the audit platform developers, and the Wellcome Trust (ST12406) for funding to support L.Z..Disclosure of InterestsLucy Zhao: None declared, James Galloway Speakers bureau: Has received honoraria from AbbVie Celgene, Chugai, Gillead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Jo Ledingham: None declared, Sarah Gallagher: None declared, Neena Garnavos: None declared, Paul Amlani-Hatcher: None declared, Nicky Wilson: None declared, Lewis Carpenter Consultant of: Statistical consultancy for Pfizer, Kirsty Bannister: None declared, Sam Norton Speakers bureau: Has received honoraria from Janssen and Pfizer.
RESUMEN
BackgroundSince 2020, the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic has disrupted the organization of healthcare systems worldwide.ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the impact of this pandemic on septic arthritis management in a tertiary rheumatology department.MethodsIt was a single-center descriptive case-control study, which included patients hospitalized for septic arthritis between January 2018 and December 2021, whose diagnosis was retained after positive bacterial growthor on culture on according to presumptive criteria. Our patients were divided into two groups: G1: patients hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), and G2: patients hospitalized during a similar period before the COVID-19 pandemic (2018-2019). In both groups, septic arthritis prevalence was calculated, socio-demographic characteristics, risk factors, clinical, paraclinical, and therapeutic data were collected. COVID-19 status was reported in the G1.ResultsTwenty-two patients were enrolled: G1 (n = 15), G2 (n = 7). The prevalence of septic arthritis was 0.77% and 0.36% respectively. The median age was 54.6±12.25 and 54.29±21.81 years old respectively. Diabetes was found in 26, 7% in G1 and 28.6% in G2. During the pandemic, arthropathy and oral corticosteroids use were noted in 53.3% and 28.6% of patients versus 26.7% and 14.3% in G2. The diagnosis delay and the prior use of antibiotic therapy were more significant in G1: 14.08[7-30] d versus 6.5[3.25-19.25] d, and 46.7% versus 14.3%. The knee was the most common localization in both groups. Other joints were affected in G1: shoulder (n = 2), hip (n = 1), and sacroiliac (n = 1). The most common germ was staphylococcus aureus. The duration of hospitalization and duration of antibiotic therapy in G1 and G2 were 26.07±9.12d versus 27.43±10.87d and 50±10d versus 48±25.79d, respectively. Concerning COVID-19 status, 33.3% of patients in G1 have received their vaccination and no recent SARS-Cov2 infection was noted before hospitalization. During the pandemic, synovectomy was required in three patients, one of whom was also transferred to intensive care for septic shock (two of these three patients are being followed for rheumatoid arthritis, and only one has never been vaccinated against COVID-19).ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of septic arthritis in our department was higher and the diagnosis was delayed. Duration of hospitalization was not impacted, however, atypical localisations, prior use of antibiotics, recourse to synovectomy, and transfer to intensive care were reported. These results suggest an inadequate and difficult access to healthcare services during the lockdown, as well as an impact of social distancing on the immune system [1, 2]. More studies are needed to confirm these findings.References[1]Robinson E. Pires et al, What Do We Need to Know about Musculoskeletal Manifestations of COVID-19? A Systematic Review, JBJS Rev. 2022 Jun 3;10(6)[2]Pantea Kiani et al, Immune Fitness and the Psychosocial and Health Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown in The Netherlands: Methodology and Design of the CLOFIT Study, Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2021 Feb 20;11(1):199-218Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
RESUMEN
BackgroundFlare of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) following COVID-19 vaccination has been reported with a low occurrence observed in those patients with disease remission. However, no local data is available in our multi-ethnic Malaysian population.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence of RA flare in Malaysian patients following COVID-19 vaccination and its associated risk factors.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study assessing RA flare based on patient-reported disease flare through self-administered questionnaires and physician-reported flare. Patient self-reported disease flare was defined as ‘a sudden worsening of rheumatology condition or arthritis within 1 month post-vaccination' while physician-reported flare was defined as ‘an increment of disease activity score 28-joint documented within 3 months post-vaccination‘ from either a scheduled or unscheduled clinic visit. A total of 186 RA patients attended the rheumatology clinic in Hospital Putrajaya from May to July 2022 who completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination under the Malaysian National Vaccination Programme were recruited. Demographic data, disease parameters including serology for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA), cessation of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around vaccination, type of vaccines and adverse events were examined using descriptive and univariate analyses.ResultsMajority (93%) of RA patients enrolled were female with a mean age of 58 years old (standard deviation, SD 12.2) and mean disease duration was 12 years (SD 7.7). More than half were seropositive (66% RF, 63% ACPA) with 47.4% had double seropositivity (RF and ACPA positive). All patients received DMARDs with the majority (71%) were on methotrexate (MTX), 21.5% were on leflunomide, 17.7% on other DMARDs, with a small proportion (14%) of patients were receiving prednisolone. Only 4.8% of patients were on biologics or targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Half of the patients were in remission prior to vaccination. 62% of patients received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as the primary vaccine, followed by Sinovac-CoronaVac (24.6%) and Oxford-AstraZeneca (13.4%) vaccines. A booster dose had been administered to 80% of patients, of which 88.7% was Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. MTX therapy were discontinued in 39.4% of patients (n=52) post-vaccination for a week duration. The prevalence of RA flare was only 12.9% (n=24) in which 14 were self-reported and 10 were physician-reported flares (4 severe flare, 6 mild-moderate flare). Flare rates were higher during the first and second dose of vaccination with 29.2% respectively, and only 12.5% were reported after booster vaccination. Common vaccine adverse effects were fever (16.8%), myalgia (8.6%) and arthralgia (6.4%). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of flare post-vaccination between age, gender, disease activity prior to vaccination, types of vaccine, usage of MTX and prednisolone, and discontinuation of MTX post-vaccination. Although seropositivity did not exhibit statistically significant flare rate post vaccination, sub-analysis revealed four times higher rate of flare in those who has double positivity compared to seronegative RA patients (12% vs 4%).ConclusionPrevelance of RA flare post-COVID-19 vaccination in Malaysian RA population is low. No significant associated risk factors were identified although double seropositivity appeared to have higher number of flares.References[1]Bixio, R., Bertelle, D., Masia, M., Pistillo, F., Carletto, A. and Rossini, M. (2021), Incidence of Disease Flare After BNT162b2 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission. ACR Open Rheumatology, 3: 832-833.[2]Li X, Tong X, Yeung WWY, Kuan P, Yum SHH, Chui CSL, Lai FTT, Wan EYF, Wong CKH, Chan EWY, Lau CS, Wong ICK. Two-dose COVID-19 vaccination and possible arthritis flare among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Hong Kong. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 Apr;81(4):564-568.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
RESUMEN
Objective: To analyze and compare the effects of different clinical characteristics on the negative conversion time of nucleic acid detection after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant infection, and to provide a scientific basis for the isolation and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: The epidemiological and clinical data of 228 mild SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infected patients diagnosed in Shanghai were retrospectively collected from April 27, 2022 to June 8, 2022 in Wujiaochang designated Hospital, Yangpu District, Shanghai. The negative conversion time of nucleic acid detection was used as the outcome variable, and the patients were divided into A (18 days) and B (>18 days). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the influencing factors of the negative conversion time of nucleic acid detection. Results: The mean nucleic acid conversion time of 228 patients was (18.7+or-12.1) d, with the median time of 18 (2-46) d. Among them, 120 patients in group A had an average nucleic acid conversion time of (13.2+or-2.0) d, and 108 cases in group B had an average nucleic acid conversion time of (20.8+or-1.3) d. Univariate analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences in the effects of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, hypokalemia, malignant tumors, neuropsychiatric diseases, chronic digestive diseases on the negative nucleic acid conversion time (P > 0.05);however, there were significant differences in the effects of combined cerebrovascular disease, leukopenia, chronic respiratory system diseases and vaccination on the negative nucleic acid conversion time (P < 0.05). Further multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the combination of chronic respiratory diseases and non-vaccination were significant risk factors for prolongation of negative nucleic acid conversion time (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The results of this study show that gender, age and whether hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes mellitus, hypokalemia, malignant tumor, neuropsychiatric disease and chronic digestive disease have no significant effect on the nucleic acid conversion time, whereas chronic respiratory disease and no vaccination are significantly correlated with the prolongation of nucleic acid conversion time in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron-infected patients.
RESUMEN
BackgroundComprehensive and large-scale assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) worldwide is lacking. The second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) study [1] is an international, multicentre, self-reported e-survey assessing several aspects of COVID-19 infection and vaccination as well as validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to outline patient experience in various autoimmune diseases (AIDs), with a particular focus on IIMs.ObjectivesTo investigate physical and mental health in a global cohort of IIM patients compared to those with non-IIM autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic AIDs (NRAIDs), and those without AIDs (controls), using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health data obtained from the COVAD-2 survey.MethodsDemographics, AID diagnoses, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments, and PROMs were extracted from the COVAD-2 database. The primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Secondary outcomes included PROMIS physical function short form-10a (PROMIS PF-10a), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores. Each outcome was compared between IIMs, non-IIM AIRDs, NRAIDs, and controls. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis.ResultsA total of 10,502 complete responses from 1582 IIMs, 4700 non-IIM AIRDs, 545 NRAIDs, and 3675 controls, which accrued as of May 2022, were analysed. Patients with IIMs were older [59±14 (IIMs) vs. 48±14 (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 45±14 (NRAIDs) vs. 40±14 (controls) years, p<0.001] and more likely to be Caucasian [82.7% (IIMs) vs. 53.2% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 62.4% (NRAIDs) vs. 34.5% (controls), p<0.001]. Among IIMs, dermatomyositis (DM) and juvenile DM were the most common (31.4%), followed by inclusion body myositis (IBM) (24.9%). Patients with IIMs were more likely to have comorbidities [68.1% (IIMs) vs. 45.7% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 45.1% (NRAIDs) vs. 26.3% (controls), p<0.001] including mental disorders [33.4% (IIMs) vs. 28.2% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 28.4% (NRAIDs) vs. 17.9% (controls), p<0.001].GPH median scores were lower in IIMs compared to NRAIDs or controls [13 (interquartile range 10–15) IIMs vs. 13 (11–15) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 15 (13–17) NRAIDs vs. 17 (15–18) controls, p<0.001] and PROMIS PF-10a median scores were the lowest in IIMs [34 (25–43) IIMs vs. 40 (34–46) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 47 (40–50) NRAIDs vs. 49 (45–50) controls, p<0.001]. GMH median scores were lower in AIDs including IIMs compared to controls [13 (10–15) IIMs vs. 13 (10–15) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 13 (11–16) NRAIDs vs. 15 (13–17) controls, p<0.001]. Pain VAS median scores were higher in AIDs compared to controls [3 (1–5) IIMs vs. 4 (2–6) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 2 (0–4) NRAIDs vs. 0 (0–2) controls, p<0.001]. Of note, PROMIS Fatigue-4a median scores were the highest in IIMs [11 (8–14) IIMs vs. 8 (10–14) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 9 (7–13) NRAIDs vs. 7 (4–10) controls, p<0.001].Multivariable regression analysis in IIMs identified older age, male sex, IBM, comorbidities including hypertension and diabetes, active disease, glucocorticoid use, increased pain and fatigue as the independent factors for lower GPH scores, whereas coexistence of interstitial lung disease, mental disorders including anxiety disorder and depression, active disease, increased pain and fatigue were the independent factors for lower GMH scores.ConclusionBoth physical and mental health are significantly impaired in patients with IIMs compared to those with non-IIM AIDs or those without AIDs. Our results call for greater attention to patient-reported experience and comorbidities including mental disorders to provide targeted approaches and optimise global well-being in patients with IIMs.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022;42:2151–58.AcknowledgementsThe authors a e grateful to all respondents for completing the questionnaire. The authors also thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren's India Foundation, EULAR PARE for their contribution to the dissemination of the survey. Finally, the authors wish to thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsAkira Yoshida: None declared, Yuan Li: None declared, Vahed Maroufy: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nippon Shinyaku, Pfizer, Consultant of: Corbus, Mochida, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Ashima Makol Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Parikshit Sen: None declared, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: CSL Limited, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Grant/research support from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Arvind Nune: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra Consultant of: AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Novartis, Consultant of: 4P-Pharma, AbbVie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi, Topadur, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Hector Chinoy Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Mallinckrodt, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Bristol Myers-Squibb, EMD Serono, Kezar, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), Corbus, Janssen, Kyverna, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Abbvie, Scipher, Horizontal Therapeutics, Teva, Biogen, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceutical, Nuvig, Capella, CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Mallinckrodt, Janssen, Q32, EMD Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Latika Gupta: None declared.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) study [1] is an international, multicentre, self-reported e-survey designed to evaluate several facets covering COVID-19 infection and vaccination as well as validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a variety of autoimmune diseases (AIDs), including systemic sclerosis (SSc). Detailed assessment of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and its drivers in patients with SSc is lacking.ObjectivesTo assess physical and mental health in a global cohort of SSc patients in comparison with non-SSc autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic AIDs (NRAIDs), and those without AIDs (controls) using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health data from the COVAD-2 survey.MethodsThe COVAD-2 database was used to extract demographics, AID diagnosis, comorbidities, disease activity, current therapies, and PROMs. PROMIS global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH) scores, PROMIS physical function short form-10a (PROMIS PF-10a), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores were compared between SSc, non-SSc AIRDs, NRAIDs, and controls. Outcomes were also compared between diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) vs limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc). Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors influencing GPH and GMH scores in SSc.ResultsA total of 10,502 complete responses from 276 SSc, 6006 non-SSc AIRDs, 545 NRAIDs, and 3675 controls as of May 2022 were included in the analysis. Respondents with SSc were older [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 55 (14) vs. 51 (15) vs. 45 (14) vs. 40 (14) years old, mean (SD), p < 0.001]. Among patients with SSc, 129 (47%) had dcSSc and 147 (53%) had lcSSc. SSc patients reported a significantly higher prevalence of ILD [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 30.4% vs. 5.5% vs. 1.5% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.001], and treatment with MMF [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 26.4% vs. 9.5% vs. 1.1% vs. 0%, p < 0.001].Patients with SSc had lower GPH and PROMIS PF-10a scores [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 13 (11–15) vs. 13 (11–15) vs. 15 (13–17) vs. 17 (15–18), median (IQR), p < 0.001;39 (33–46) vs. 39 (32–45) vs. 47 (40–50) vs. 49 (45–50), p < 0.001, respectively] and higher Pain VAS and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores compared to those with NRAIDs or controls [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 3 (2–5) vs. 3 (1–6) vs. 2 (0–4) vs. 0 (0–2), p < 0.001;11 (8–14) vs. 11 (8–14) vs. 9 (7–13) vs. 7 (4–10), p < 0.001, respectively]. Patients with AIDs including SSc had lower GMH scores compared to controls [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 12.5 (10–15) vs. 13 (10–15) vs. 13 (11–16) vs. 15 (13–17), p < 0.001].Among SSc patients, GPH, GMH, and PROMIS PF-10a scores were lower in dcSSc compared to lcSSc [dcSSc vs. lcSSc: 12 (10–14) vs. 14 (11–15), p < 0.001;12 (10-14) vs. 13 (10-15), p<0.001;38 (30–43) vs. 41 (34–47), p < 0.001, respectively]. Pain VAS and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores were higher in dcSSc compared to lcSSc [4 (2–6) vs. 3 (1–5), p < 0.001;12 (8–15) vs. 9 (8–13), p < 0.001, respectively].The independent factors for lower GPH scores in SSc were older age, Asian ethnicity, glucocorticoid use, and higher pain and fatigue scales, while mental health disorders and higher pain and fatigue scales were independently associated with lower GMH scores.ConclusionIn a global cohort, patient-reported physical and mental health were significantly worse in patients with SSc in comparison to those with non-SSc AIDs and without AIDs. Our findings support the critical need for more attention to patient's subjective experiences including pain and fatigue to improve the HRQOL in patients with SSc.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022;42: 2151–58.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsKeina Yomono: None declared, Yuan Li: None dec ared, Vahed Maroufy: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Akira Yoshida: None declared, Kshitij Jagtap: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova Speakers bureau: Pfizer and AstraZeneca, Parikshit Sen: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Ashima Makol: None declared, Dey Dzifa: None declared, Carlos Enrique Toro Gutierrez: None declared, Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Aarat Patel: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Kyverna Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Scipher, Horizon Therepeutics, Teva, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Nuvig, Capella Bioscience, and CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Kyverna Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Scipher, Horizon Therepeutics, Teva, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Nuvig, Capella Bioscience, and CabalettaBio, Latika Gupta: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, MBL, Mochida, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Consultant of: Astra Zeneka, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corbus, GSK, Horizon, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Grant/research support from: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Vikas Agarwal: None declared.
RESUMEN
AI and machine learning are increasingly often applied in the medical industry. The COVID-19 epidemic will start to spread quickly over the planet around the start of 2020. At hospitals, there were more patients than there were beds. It was challenging for medical personnel to identify the patient who needed treatment right away. A machine learning approach is used to predict COVID-19 pandemic patients at high risk. To provide input data and output results that execute the machine learning model on the backend, a straightforward Python Flask web application is employed. Here, the XGBoost algorithm, a supervised machine learning method, is applied. In order to predict high-risk patients based on their current underlying health issues, the model uses patient characteristics as well as criteria like age, sex, health issues including diabetes, asthma, hypertension, and smoking, among others. The XGBoost model predicts the patient's severity with an accuracy of about 98% after data pre-processing and training. The most important factors to the models are chosen to be age, diabetes, sex, and obesity. Patients and hospital personnel will benefit from this project's assistance in making timely choices and taking appropriate action. This will let medical personnel decide how much time and space to devote to the COVID-19 high-risk patients. providing a treatment that is both efficient and ideal. With this programme and the necessary patient data, hospitals may decide whether a patient need immediate care or not.
RESUMEN
In the arena of clinical research, gender equity accelerates research excellence: we need multiple perspectives and all the brain power we can muster to maximize research productivity and quality. [...]women physician investigators enhance enrollment of women as participants in clinical trials, which is crucial to our ability to generalize from the data and to maintain the health of women. Women are underrepresented among academic grand rounds speakers,14 speakers at medical conferences15, and award recipients from medical specialty societies.16 Time pressure is especially intense on young women faculty. Besides spending more time on domestic chores, they spend more time at work on teaching, service, and mentoring. Female primary care physicians spend more time with patients.22 Elderly hospitalized patients treated by female internists experience lower mortality and readmission rates.23 Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting had shorter hospital length of stay when treated by an all-female physician team as compared with an all-male team.24 Female patients treated by male physicians following acute myocardial infarction have higher mortality than those treated by female physicians.25 Sex discordance between patient and surgeon is associated with increased likelihood of adverse postoperative outcomes-and that observation that is driven by worse outcomes for female patients treated by male physicians.26 Clinical trials play a fundamental role in bringing new medications and interventions to our patients, yet women have often been excluded from participation. Among 60 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lipidlowering therapies reported between 1990 and 2018, there was a modest increase in enrollment of women over time, but women remain underrepresented compared with the relative burden of disease.30 In another study of 317 RCTs of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction published in highimpact journals over the past 20 years, only 25% of participants overall were female, and females were under-enrolled in 72% of these trials.
RESUMEN
Home visits have the power to ease the clinical trial process for patients, but complex study design, tight timelines, busy clinical operations teams, and overburdened sites can sometimes make home health feel like yet another moving piece to manage. Individual variables that play a large role in establishing timelines can include factors like: * Amount of protocol-specific training required. * Level of engagement during a visit. * On-site processing requirements. * Drug or sample stability. * Recruitment goals. [...]all training should be to the full satisfaction of the principal investigator overseeing the study. Since sites are still responsible for the conduct of home visits from a regulatory perspective, there is often a concern about how they can remain in control of the progress without overwhelming the already busy study team and staff.
RESUMEN
ContextInduction of labour (IOL) is a very common medical intervention with current rates variable as 30-35% nationally. The rates are further increasing because of national drivers and maternity units in the UK are under immense pressure with capacity and staffing issues. Delays because of logistical challenges and understaffing have had a severe impact on patient and staff satisfaction. This area is not very well-studied, despite the severe impact the Covid-19 epidemic had on maternity services throughout the country. This QI project was bifold and aimed to explore the experiences of patients as well as staff during their IOL process at Lister Maternity Unit, understand their perspectives and seek improvement and solutions to the current process.Data was collected using paper and online questionnaires for patients and staff. An information leaflet outlining the purpose of the study was provided with the questionnaire. Surveys included both open questions (for example, was there a delay to your induction and if yes, was it explained to you well?) as well as scoring questions (0-10) regarding communication, facilities and overall experience.Surveys identified four main areas to improve: providing information about the process, planning of activity i.e., number of inductions per day, communication issues between clinical areas and managing patient expectations. Importantly, exploring both patient and staff perceptions helped to identify issues and possible solutions at the same time – for example, patients were often unhappy and worried about delays in their procedures and staff raised concerns about patients not being given enough information about the IOL process including the realistic time scale.Overall, analysis of collected information helped us to develop cost-effective solutions: RAG system to help prioritisation of inductions, incorporation of patient-friendly tools, videos and improvement in current IOL information leaflets, a clerking or checklist proforma as a referencing source of discussion and more support from ward matrons and daily morning obstetric consultant ward rounds to aid communication. Information leaflets and videos have been shared with local maternity service networks (LMNS) and maternity voices partnership (MVP) as service user groups. These solutions will be now implemented at Lister Hospital and their efficacy will be continually evaluated and shared within LMNS.
RESUMEN
BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) is an oral JAK inhibitor (JAKi) approved for the treatment of RA. JAKi have been associated with an elevated risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients (pts) with RA. The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) was shown to be well-tolerated and effective in preventing HZ in adults aged ≥ 50 years.[1] The efficacy and safety of RZV have not been studied in pts with RA while on UPA in combination with MTX.ObjectivesTo assess the immunogenicity of RZV in pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) with background MTX.MethodsEligible adults aged ≥ 50 years with RA enrolled in the ongoing SELECT-COMPARE phase 3 trial (NCT02629159) received two RZV doses, administered at the baseline and week (wk) 12 visits. Pts should have been on stable doses of UPA 15 mg QD and background MTX for ≥ 8 wks before the first vaccination and ≥ 4 wks after the second vaccination. Antibody titers were collected pre-vaccination (baseline), 4 wks post-dose 1 vaccination (wk 4), and 4 wks post-dose 2 vaccination (wk 16). The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts with a humoral response to RZV defined as ≥ 4-fold increase in pre-vaccination concentration of anti-glycoprotein E [gE] titer levels at wk 16. Secondary endpoints included humoral response to RZV at wk 4 and the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in anti-gE antibody levels at wks 4 and 16. Cell-mediated immunogenicity to RZV was an exploratory endpoint evaluated by the frequencies of gE-specific CD4+ [2+] T cells (CD4+ T cells expressing ≥ 2 of 4 activation markers: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α, and CD40 ligand) measured by flow cytometry at wks 4 and 16 in a sub-cohort of pts.ResultsOf the 95 pts who received ≥ 1 RZV dose, 93 (98%) received both RZV doses. Pts had a mean (standard deviation) age of 62.4 (7.5) years. The median (range) disease duration was 11.7 (4.9–41.6) years and duration of UPA exposure was 3.9 (2.9–5.8) years. At baseline, all but 2 pts were receiving concomitant MTX and half (50%) were taking an oral corticosteroid (CS) at a median daily dose of 5.0 mg. One pt discontinued UPA by wk 16. Blood samples were available from 90/93 pts. Satisfactory humoral responses to RZV occurred in 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55–74) of pts at wk 4 and 88% (81–95) at wk 16 (Figure 1). Age (50–< 65 years: 85% [95% CI: 75–94];≥ 65 years: 94% [85–100]) and concomitant CS (yes: 87% [77–97];no: 89% [80–98]) use at baseline did not affect humoral responses at wk 16. GMFR in anti-gE antibody levels compared with baseline values were observed at wks 4 (10.2 [95% CI: 7.3–14.3]) and 16 (22.6 [15.9–32.2]). Among the sub-cohort of pts, nearly two-thirds achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV (wk 4: n = 21/34, 62% [95% CI: 45–78];wk 16: n = 25/38;66% [51–81]). Within 30 days post-vaccination of either RZV dose, no serious adverse events (AEs) (Table 1) or HZ were reported. AEs that were possibly related to RZV were reported in 17% of pts. One death occurred more than 30 days after wk 16 due to COVID-19 pneumonia.ConclusionMore than three-quarters (88%) of pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg QD on background MTX achieved a satisfactory humoral response to RZV at wk 16. In a subgroup of pts, two-thirds (66%) achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV at wk 16. Age and concomitant CS use did not negatively affect RZV response.Reference[1]Syed YY. Drugs Aging. 2018;35:1031–40.Table 1. Safety Results Through 30-Days Post-RZV Vaccination in UPA-Treated PatientsEvent, n (%)UPA 15 mg QD (N = 95)Any AE38 (40%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to UPAa13 (14%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to RZVa16 (17%)Severe AEb1 (1%)Serious AE0AE leading to discontinuation of UPA0Death0AE, adverse event;QD, once daily;RZV, adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine;UPA, upadacitinib.aAs assessed by the investigator.bHypersensitivity.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsKevin Winthrop Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Justin Klaff Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanxi Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, CONRADO GARCIA GARCIA: None declared, Eduardo Mysler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Alvin F. Wells Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Michael Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anthony Cunningham Consultant of: GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and BioCSL/Sequirus.
RESUMEN
BackgroundIn 2012 the Swedish national guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) were published. The guidelines implicit that all patients with OA should obtain information and supervised exercise as first-line intervention and that OA is a clinical, not radiological diagnosis. The Swedish OA registry contains data which measure compliance to the guidelines since 2008 [2].ObjectivesTo describe the trends over time from 2008 to 2021 for patients who have received first-line interventions for hip and knee OA in Sweden and adherence of the healthcare staff to the national guidelines.MethodsDescriptive registry-based study including patients with hip or knee OA who participated in first-line interventions including education and exercise. Data were extracted from the Swedish OA registry between January 1st, 2008, and December 31, 2021. The registry contains patient-reported outcomes and physiotherapist-reported outcomes. In this study the following physiotherapist-reported outcomes were described over time: radiological examination before first-line intervention, if the first-line intervention was given the first time the patient seek health care caused of OA, which explanation patients had been given about their disease, intake of painkillers before the start of first-line intervention and the percent who got supervised exercise >10 times according to the guidelines of OA in Sweden. The following patient-reported outcomes were described over time: mean BMI at the first visit, and mean age at the first visit. To be included in the study, participants had to meet the following criteria: i) clinical diagnosis of OA, with hip or knee OA as the most symptomatic joint, ii) provided 3-month follow-up.ResultsA total of 175 764 participants with hip or knee OA were included in the study.The trends from 2008-2021 showed that the proportion of patients who had a radiological examination before entering the first-line intervention decreased from 97 % to 65 % in men and from 95% to 62 % in women. The proportion of patients who get assess to first-line intervention the first time they seek for their symptoms increased from 4 % to 10 % both in men and women. People that get the correct information about OA increased from 15% to 40 %, and patients that get the explanation that OA was a tear and wear disease decreased from 30 % to 5%. The mean BMI (28) is unchanged over time. The mean age increased from 64 years to 67 years between 2008-2020 but decreased during the covid-19 pandemic to 64 years. The percentage that was given supervised exercise more than 10 times was constant between 2012-2020 at 30 % but decreased during the covid-19 pandemic to 20%.ConclusionThe results implicit that the implementation of a supported OA self-management program in Sweden has been successful and changed the care given to patients with OA in Sweden. However, the national guidelines for OA, have still not been fully implemented. We need to keep implementing the guidelines so all patients with OA get the first-line intervention at the right time.References[1]Anon. (2012). Nationella riktlinjer för rörelseorganens sjukdomar 2012 - stöd för styrning och ledning. Socialstyrelsen.[2]Thorstensson CA, Garellick G, Rystedt H, Dahlberg LE. Better Management of Patients with Osteoarthritis: Development and Nationwide Implementation of an Evidence-Based Supported Osteoarthritis Self-Management Programme. Musculoskeletal Care. 2015 Jun;13(2):67-75. doi: 10.1002/msc.1085. Epub 2014 Oct 24. PMID: 25345913.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
RESUMEN
[...]CURES' BILL PROMOTES PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS Congressional leaders are developing the next version of the 21st Century Cures Act, including provisions to advance research related to the COVID-19 crisis as part of initiatives for bringing innovative therapies to market faster (see https://bit.ly/2SKfA4S). Cures 2.0 continues and updates some of the main themes of the first Cures Act: support development of treatments for rare diseases, patient-focused drug development, diversity in clinical trials, expanded use of digital health systems, increased health literacy, and utilization of real-world data. A public education campaign, moreover, would aim to counter concerns about the safety of vaccines to promote widespread vaccination. Because these treatments are costly and unprofitable for biopharma companies to test and market, the legislation proposes additional financial support for both pre-market studies and post-market production and subsidized higher reimbursement rates for antibiotics that address critical needs.
RESUMEN
This study examines clinical outcomes in patients with cytomegalovirus (CMV) and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection. Between June and November 2020, previously immunocompetent patients with SARS-CoV-2 and CMV coinfection were identified at Houston Methodist Hospital as part of routine clinical correlation by a molecular pathologist. SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal specimens were analyzed by real time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). All CMV tests were performed on plasma or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens and analyzed by competitive polymerase chain reaction. 65 previously immunocompetent patients with CMV and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection were identified. Patient demographics include 41 male patients (63%) and 24 female patients (37%) ranging in age from 34 to 86 years (mean: 66.04, median 68). Documented pre-existing conditions include 27 patients with hypertension 41.5%), 19 patients with diabetes mellitus (29.2%), 9 patients with coronary artery disease (13.8%), and 3 patients with asthma (4.6%). Eight patients (12.3%) had no documented pre-existing conditions. The plasma CMV viral load ranged from <300 to 21,566 IU/mL. The CMV PCR results from bronchoalveolar lavage and bronchial wash specimens ranged from <300 to 59,127 IU/mL. CMV PCR was initially negative in 10 patients then positive on serial testing. 60 patients were critically ill requiring ventilator support (92.3%). 47 patients (72.3%) expired, 7 patients (10.8%) were transferred to a long term acute care facility, 3 patients (4.6%) were discharged to a rehabilitation facility, 3 patients (4.6%) were discharged home, and 1 patient (1.5%) remained in-patient at the time of analysis. The prevalence of CMV seropositivity and medical comorbidities increases with age. Reactivation of latent CMV is a known occurrence in critically ill patients that is associated with poor outcomes. The majority of the patients in our cohort were 50 years old, and all were severely to critically ill with a mortality rate of 72.3% These findings suggest CMV portends a worse prognosis in patients with COVID-19. These findings also demonstrate the importance of clinical correlation in molecular testing.
RESUMEN
BackgroundPsoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can greatly impact quality of life and result in substantial personal and societal costs. Complete and up to date data on the prevalence and incidence of these conditions and whether these change over time and vary by age is important for healthcare service planning so that specialist care and funding can be appropriately allocated.ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and incidence of PsO and PsA in males and females from 2009-2019 across all age groups in England.MethodsWe used Clinical Practice Research Datalink AURUM, a primary care electronic health record database, including 20% of the English population. The codes used to identify patients with PsO and PsA were selected by rheumatologists and dermatologists and cross-checked with published code lists from other studies to ensure inclusion of all relevant codes. All included patients must have data for at least 1 year before their diagnosis. The annual incidence and point prevalence were calculated from 2009-2019 and stratified by age/sex. The study period ended in 2019 to avoid COVID-19 pandemic affecting results.ResultsThe prevalence of PsO and PsA in males and females increased annually, peaking in 2019 (PsO males 2.41% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.40, 2.42];PsO females 2.60% [95% CI 2.59-2.61];PsA males 0.20% [95% CI 0.20-0.20];PsA females 0.21% [95% CI 0.21- 0.22]), as illustrated in Table 1. In 2019, the prevalence of PsO and PsA was highest in the over 65 years age group;PsO 4.25% [95% CI 4.22-4.28] and PsA 0.38% [95% CI 0.37-0.38]. The annual incidence (per 100,000 person years) of PsO has gradually decreased in males (from 168 (164-171) in 2009 to 148 (145-151) in 2019) but in females it has been stable with a slight annual decrease (from 180 (177-184) in 2009 to 173 (170-176) in 2019). The annual incidence for PsA has increased in both males and females (13 (12-14) in 2009 and 15 (14-16) in 2019 for males and 12 (11-13) in 2009 and 18 (17-19) in 2019 for females).ConclusionThe increasing prevalence of PsO and PsA highlights the importance of organising healthcare services to meet this need, particularly in the elderly population.ReferencesNIL.Table 1.Prevalence of PsO and PsA from 2009-2019 in EnglandYear20092010201120122013201420152016201720182019Population (n)1073383110910802110318501118036711343299112249341137842211657996119336261223432512420998PsO (n)216841229106239819250667259988268032276804286499295712304568311104PsO prevalence (%, 95%CI)-Male1.98 (1.96-1.99)2.06 (2.05- 2.07)2.13 (2.12-2.14)2.19 (2.18-2.20)2.24 (2.23- 2.25)2.33 (2.32- 2.34)2.37 (2.36- 2.38)2.39 (2.38- 2.40)2.40 (2.39- 2.41)2.40 (2.39- 2.42)2.41 (2.40- 2.42)-Female2.07 (2.05- 2.08)2.14 (2.13- 2.16)2.22 (2.21- 2.23)2.29 (2.28- 2.31)2.35 (2.33- 2.36)2.45 (2.43- 2.46)2.50 (2.49- 2.51)2.53 (2.52- 2.54)2.56 (2.54- 2.57)2.58 (2.56- 2.59)2.60 (2.59- 2.61)PsO incidence (100,000 person years)-Male168 (164-171)158 (155- 162)161 (158-165)153 (150-157)161 (157- 164)156 (153- 159)155 (152- 159)154 (151- 157)153 (150-156)150 (147-153)148 (145-151)-Female180 (177-184)176 (172-179)181 (177-184)171 (167-174)175 (171-178)176 (172-180)179 (176-183)178 (174-181)177 (174-181)174 (170-177)173 (170-176)PsA (n)1444515443164681752218545196182072021994232572451425683PsA prevalence (%, 95%CI)-Male0.14 (0.14- 0.14)0.15 (0.14- 0.15)0.15 (0.15- 0.16)0.16 (0.16- 0.16)0.17 (0.16- 0.17)0.18 (0.17- 0.18)0.18 (0.18- 0.19)0.19 (0.18- 0.19)0.19 (0.19- 0.20)0.20 (0.19- 0.20)0.20 (0.20- 0.20)-Female0.13 (0.13- 0.13)0.14 (0.13- 0.14)0.15 (0.14- 0.15)0.15 (0.15- 0.16)0.16 (0.16- 0.16)0.17 (0.17- 0.18)0.18 (0.18- 0.18)0.19 (0.19- 0.19)0.20 (0.19- 0.20)0.20 (0.20- 0.21)0.21 (0.21- 0.22)PsA incidence (100,000 person years)-Male13 (12- 14)12 (11- 13)13 (12- 14)12 (11- 13)13 (12-14)14 (13- 15)14 (13- 15)14 (13-15)1514-16)14(13- 15)15 (14-16)-Female12 (11- 13)13 (12- 14)13 (12- 14)14 (13-15)14 (13-15)15 (14-16)17 (16- 18)16 (15- 17)17 (16- 18)18 (17-19)18 (17-19)Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsArani Vivekanantham: None declared, Edward Burn: None dec ared, Marta Pineda-Moncusí: None declared, Sara Khalid Grant/research support from: SK has received research grant funding from the UKRI and Alan Turing Institute outside this work. SK's research group has received grant support from Amgen and UCB Biopharma., Daniel Prieto-Alhambra Grant/research support from: DPA's department has received grant/s from Amgen, Chiesi-Taylor, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Biopharma. His research group has received consultancy fees from Astra Zeneca and UCB Biopharma. Amgen, Astellas, Janssen, Synapse Management Partners and UCB Biopharma have funded or supported training programmes organised by DPA's department., Laura Coates Speakers bureau: LC has been paid as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Consultant of: LC has worked as a paid consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Grant/research support from: LC has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer.
RESUMEN
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and strategies meant to mitigate infections caused disruptions to healthcare services across the globe. To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the healthcare of patients with type 2 diabetes in the VA healthcare system, this work enumerated a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who utilized care in the VA across all months between March 2018 and February 2022 and analyzed service utilization, medication adherence, and diabetes-related short-term outcomes.The first objective was to determine the effect of the pandemic's interruption on the utilization of diabetes-related outpatient encounters. Results showed that the share of patients with diabetes with at least one virtual care visit increased from 3.4% in the pre- COVID year (March 2019 to February 2020) to 16.4% in the first year during COVID (March 2020 to February 2021) while the percent of patients with diabetes with an in- person diabetes-related outpatient visit fell from 89.8% to 72.3%.Second, large changes in oral antidiabetic medication use, adherence (i.e., proportion of days (PDC) covered >=80%), and discontinuation (zero days covered) were discovered during the pandemic among patients with treated type 2 diabetes. The mean percent adherent was 23.4%, 11.6%, and 30.1% during the pre-pandemic (i.e., March 2018-February 2020), pre-vaccine pandemic (i.e., March 2020-December 2020), and post-vaccine pandemic (i.e., January 2021-February 2020) periods, respectively.Finally, this study evaluated changes in average A1C measurement, glycemic control, and preventable diabetes outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The percent of eligible patients with A1C measurement decreased by 8.6% when the pandemic began, trending back to pre-pandemic levels by January 2021, at which point it fell by about 1% per month to end of study. The rate of uncontrolled diabetes averaged 400 per 100,000 before the pandemic, but rose to almost 550 per 100,000 patients during the pandemic. Likewise, the rate of short-term complications averaged 30 per 100,000, but rose to 49 per 100,000 at its high during the pandemic.The pandemic's interruptions caused vast differences in the healthcare routines of patients with diabetes, which initially led to more negative outcomes than before the pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)