Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies for people with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without haematopoietic stem cell support.

BACKGROUND: An estimated one-quarter to one-half of people diagnosed with haematological malignancies experience anaemia. There are different strategies for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat anaemia. A restrictive transfusion strategy permits a lower haemoglobin (Hb) level whereas a liberal transfusion strategy aims to maintain a higher Hb. The most effective and safest strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies for people diagnosed with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) in MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2023, Issue 2), and eight other databases (including three trial registries) to 21 March 2023. We also searched grey literature and contacted experts in transfusion for additional trials. There were no language, date or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and prospective NRS that evaluated restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies in children or adults with malignant haematological disorders receiving intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without HSCT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened references, full-text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Narrative syntheses were used for heterogeneous outcome measures. Review Manager Web was used to meta-analyse the data. Main outcomes of interest included: all-cause mortality at 31 to 100 days, quality of life, number of participants with any bleeding, number of participants with clinically significant bleeding, serious infections, length of hospital admission (days) and hospital readmission at 0 to 3 months. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met eligibility; eight RCTs and one NRS. Six hundred and forty-four participants were included from six completed RCTs (n = 560) and one completed NRS (n = 84), with two ongoing RCTs consisting of 294 participants (260 adult and 34 paediatric) pending inclusion. Only one completed RCT included children receiving HSCT (n = 6); the other five RCTs only included adults: 239 with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy and 315 receiving HSCT (166 allogeneic and 149 autologous). The transfusion threshold ranged from 70 g/L to 80 g/L for restrictive and from 80 g/L to 120 g/L for liberal strategies. Effects were reported in the summary of findings tables only for the trials that included adults to reduce indirectness due to the limited evidence contributed by the prematurely terminated paediatric trial. Evidence from RCTs Overall, there may be little to no difference in the number of participants who die within 31 to 100 days using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 451 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.70, P=0.99; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in quality of life at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 431 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from any bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies; 448 participants; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, P = 0.22; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from clinically significant bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (four studies; 511 participants; RR: 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.19, P = 0.60; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who experience serious infections at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies, 451 participants; RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.55, P = 0.17; low-certainty evidence). A restrictive transfusion strategy likely results in little to no difference in the length of hospital admission at 0 to 3 months compared to a liberal strategy (two studies; 388 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity in reporting; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between hospital readmission using a restrictive transfusion strategy compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (one study, 299 participants; RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.50; P = 0.65; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from NRS The evidence is very uncertain whether a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: reduces the risk of death within 100 days (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 1 death; liberal 1 death; very low-certainty evidence); or decreases the risk of clinically significant bleeding (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 3; liberal 8; very low-certainty evidence). No NRS reported on the other eligible outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review were based on seven studies and 644 participants. Definite conclusions are challenging given the relatively few included studies, low number of included participants, heterogeneity of intervention and outcome reporting, and overall certainty of evidence. To increase the certainty of the true effect of a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy on clinical outcomes, there is a need for rigorously designed and executed studies. The evidence is largely based on two populations: adults with acute leukaemia receiving intensive chemotherapy and adults with haematologic malignancy requiring HSCT. Despite the addition of 405 participants from three RCTs to the previous review's results, there is still insufficient evidence to answer this review's primary outcome. If we assume a mortality rate of 3% within 100 days, we would need a total of 1492 participants to have an 80% chance of detecting, at a 5% level of significance, an increase in all-cause mortality from 3% to 6%. Further RCTs are needed overall, particularly in children.

Characteristics associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in people with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: data from the COVID-19 PsoProtect and Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registries.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate factors associated with severe COVID-19 in people with psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Demographic data, clinical characteristics and COVID-19 outcome severity of adults with PsO, PsA and axSpA were obtained from two international physician-reported registries. A three-point ordinal COVID-19 severity scale was defined: no hospitalisation, hospitalisation (and no death) and death. ORs were estimated using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 5045 cases, 18.3% had PsO, 45.5% PsA and 36.3% axSpA. Most (83.6%) were not hospitalised, 14.6% were hospitalised and 1.8% died. Older age was non-linearly associated with COVID-19 severity. Male sex (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.83), cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, metabolic and cancer comorbidities (ORs 1.25-2.89), moderate/high disease activity and/or glucocorticoid use (ORs 1.39-2.23, vs remission/low disease activity and no glucocorticoids) were associated with increased odds of severe COVID-19. Later pandemic time periods (ORs 0.42-0.52, vs until 15 June 2020), PsO (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.65, vs PsA) and baseline exposure to TNFi, IL17i and IL-23i/IL-12+23i (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.73; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; respectively; vs no disease-modifying antirheumatic drug) were associated with reduced odds of severe COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Older age, male sex, comorbidity burden, higher disease activity and glucocorticoid intake were associated with more severe COVID-19. Later pandemic time periods, PsO and exposure to TNFi, IL17i and IL-23i/IL-12+23i were associated with less severe COVID-19. These findings will enable risk stratification and inform management decisions for patients with PsO, PsA and axSpA during COVID-19 waves or similar future respiratory pandemics.

Obstetric outcomes in women with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 in the context of vaccination status.

OBJECTIVE: To describe obstetric outcomes based on COVID-19 vaccination status, in women with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who developed COVID-19 during pregnancy. METHODS: Data regarding pregnant women entered into the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry from 24 March 2020-25 February 2022 were analysed. Obstetric outcomes were stratified by number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received prior to COVID-19 infection in pregnancy. Descriptive differences between groups were tested using the chi-squared or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: There were 73 pregnancies in 73 women with RMD and COVID-19. Overall, 24.7% (18) of pregnancies were ongoing, while of the 55 completed pregnancies, 90.9% (50) of pregnancies resulted in livebirths. At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 60.3% (n = 44) of women were unvaccinated, 4.1% (n = 3) had received one vaccine dose while 35.6% (n = 26) had two or more doses. Although 83.6% (n = 61) of women required no treatment for COVID-19, 20.5% (n = 15) required hospital admission. COVID-19 resulted in delivery in 6.8% (n = 3) of unvaccinated women and 3.8% (n = 1) of fully vaccinated women. There was a greater number of preterm births (PTB) in unvaccinated women compared with fully vaccinated 29.5% (n = 13) vs 18.2% (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: In this descriptive study, unvaccinated pregnant women with RMD and COVID-19 had a greater number of PTB compared with those fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Additionally, the need for COVID-19 pharmacological treatment was uncommon in pregnant women with RMD regardless of vaccination status. These results support active promotion of COVID-19 vaccination in women with RMD who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy.

Characteristics associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus: data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

AIM: To determine characteristics associated with more severe outcomes in a global registry of people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and COVID-19. METHODS: People with SLE and COVID-19 reported in the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry from March 2020 to June 2021 were included. The ordinal outcome was defined as: (1) not hospitalised, (2) hospitalised with no oxygenation, (3) hospitalised with any ventilation or oxygenation and (4) death. A multivariable ordinal logistic regression model was constructed to assess the relationship between COVID-19 severity and demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medications and disease activity. RESULTS: A total of 1606 people with SLE were included. In the multivariable model, older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.04), male sex (1.50, 1.01 to 2.23), prednisone dose (1-5 mg/day 1.86, 1.20 to 2.66, 6-9 mg/day 2.47, 1.24 to 4.86 and ≥10 mg/day 1.95, 1.27 to 2.99), no current treatment (1.80, 1.17 to 2.75), comorbidities (eg, kidney disease 3.51, 2.42 to 5.09, cardiovascular disease/hypertension 1.69, 1.25 to 2.29) and moderate or high SLE disease activity (vs remission; 1.61, 1.02 to 2.54 and 3.94, 2.11 to 7.34, respectively) were associated with more severe outcomes. In age-adjusted and sex-adjusted models, mycophenolate, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were associated with worse outcomes compared with hydroxychloroquine; outcomes were more favourable with methotrexate and belimumab. CONCLUSIONS: More severe COVID-19 outcomes in individuals with SLE are largely driven by demographic factors, comorbidities and untreated or active SLE. Patients using glucocorticoids also experienced more severe outcomes.

Baseline factors associated with self-reported disease flares following COVID-19 vaccination among adults with systemic rheumatic disease: results from the COVID-19 global rheumatology alliance vaccine survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency of, and risk factors for, disease flare following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with systemic rheumatic disease (SRD). METHODS: An international study was conducted from 2 April to 16 August 2021, using an online survey of 5619 adults with SRD for adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including flares of disease requiring a change in treatment. We examined risk factors identified a priori based on published associations with SRD activity and SARS-CoV-2 severity, including demographics, SRD type, comorbidities, vaccine type, cessation of immunosuppressive medications around vaccination and history of reactions to non-COVID-19 vaccines, using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Flares requiring a change in treatment following COVID-19 vaccination were reported by 4.9% of patients. Compared with rheumatoid arthritis, certain SRD, including systemic lupus erythematosus (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.03, 2.20), psoriatic arthritis (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.20, 3.18) and polymyalgia rheumatica (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.08, 2.48) were associated with higher odds of flare, while idiopathic inflammatory myopathies were associated with lower odds for flare (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96). The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was associated with higher odds of flare relative to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.07, 1.95), as were a prior reaction to a non-COVID-19 vaccine (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76, 3.54) and female sex (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.55, 4.72). CONCLUSION: SRD flares requiring changes in treatment following COVID-19 vaccination were uncommon in this large international study. Several potential risk factors, as well as differences by disease type, warrant further examination in prospective cohorts.

Performance characteristics of platelet autoantibody testing for the diagnosis of immune thrombocytopenia using strict clinical criteria.

Misclassification of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is common, which might undermine the value of platelet autoantibody testing. We determined the sensitivity and specificity of platelet autoantibody testing using the direct antigen capture assay for anti-glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa or anti-GPIbIX in patients with 'definite ITP', defined as those with a documented treatment response. Sensitivity of platelet autoantiboody testing increased from 48·3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43·5-53·2] for all ITP patients to 64·7% (95% CI 54·6-73·9) for definite ITP patients. Specificity was unchanged [75·3% (95% CI 67·5-82·1)]. High optical density values (>0·8) improved the specificity of platelet autoantibody testing but lowered sensitivity. In patients with a high pretest probability, platelet autoantibodies can aid in the diagnosis of ITP and may be most prevalent in certain patient subsets.

Health-Related Quality-of-Life and Cost Utility Analyses in Critical Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Cost utility analyses compare the costs and health outcome of interventions, with a denominator of quality-adjusted life year, a generic health utility measure combining both quality and quantity of life. Cost utility analyses are difficult to compare when methods are not standardized. It is unclear how cost utility analyses are measured/reported in critical care and what methodologic challenges cost utility analyses pose in this setting. This may lead to differences precluding cost utility analyses comparisons. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of cost utility analyses conducted in critical care. Our objectives were to understand: 1) methodologic characteristics, 2) how health-related quality-of-life was measured/reported, and 3) what costs were reported/measured. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched for cost utility analyses in critical care in MEDLINE, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews' selected subset of archived versions of UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and American Economic Association electronic databases from inception to April 30, 2020. SETTING: Adult ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 8,926 citations, 80 cost utility analyse studies were eligible. The time horizon most commonly reported was lifetime (59%). For health utility reporting, health-related quality-of-life was infrequently measured (29% reported), with only 5% of studies reporting baseline health-related quality-of-life. Indirect utility measures (generic, preference-based health utility measurement tools) were reported in 85% of studies (majority Euro-quality-of-life-5 Domains, 52%). Methods of estimating health-related quality-of-life were seldom used when the patient was incapacitated: imputation (19%), assigning fixed utilities for incapacitation (19%), and surrogates reporting on behalf of incapacitated patients (5%). For cost utility reporting transparency, separate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years were both reported in only 76% of studies. Disaggregated quality-adjusted life years (reporting separate health utility and life years) were described in only 34% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified deficiencies which warrant recommendations (standardized measurement/reporting of resource use/unit costs/health-related quality-of-life/methodological preferences) for improved design, conduct, and reporting of future cost utility analyses in critical care.

Factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry.

OBJECTIVES: To determine factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases. METHODS: Physician-reported registry of adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19 (from 24 March to 1 July 2020). The primary outcome was COVID-19-related death. Age, sex, smoking status, comorbidities, rheumatic disease diagnosis, disease activity and medications were included as covariates in multivariable logistic regression models. Analyses were further stratified according to rheumatic disease category. RESULTS: Of 3729 patients (mean age 57 years, 68% female), 390 (10.5%) died. Independent factors associated with COVID-19-related death were age (66-75 years: OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.22; >75 years: 6.18, 4.47 to 8.53; both vs ≤65 years), male sex (1.46, 1.11 to 1.91), hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease (1.89, 1.31 to 2.73), chronic lung disease (1.68, 1.26 to 2.25) and prednisolone-equivalent dosage >10 mg/day (1.69, 1.18 to 2.41; vs no glucocorticoid intake). Moderate/high disease activity (vs remission/low disease activity) was associated with higher odds of death (1.87, 1.27 to 2.77). Rituximab (4.04, 2.32 to 7.03), sulfasalazine (3.60, 1.66 to 7.78), immunosuppressants (azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, ciclosporin, mycophenolate or tacrolimus: 2.22, 1.43 to 3.46) and not receiving any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) (2.11, 1.48 to 3.01) were associated with higher odds of death, compared with methotrexate monotherapy. Other synthetic/biological DMARDs were not associated with COVID-19-related death. CONCLUSION: Among people with rheumatic disease, COVID-19-related death was associated with known general factors (older age, male sex and specific comorbidities) and disease-specific factors (disease activity and specific medications). The association with moderate/high disease activity highlights the importance of adequate disease control with DMARDs, preferably without increasing glucocorticoid dosages. Caution may be required with rituximab, sulfasalazine and some immunosuppressants.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance: evaluating the rapid design and implementation of an international registry against best practice.

OBJECTIVES: As the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic developed there was a paucity of data relevant to people living with rheumatic disease. This led to the development of a global, online registry to meet these information needs. This manuscript provides a detailed description of the coronavirus disease 2019 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry development, governance structure, and data collection, and insights into new ways of rapidly establishing global research collaborations to meet urgent research needs. METHODS: We use previously published recommendations for best practices for registry implementation and describe the development of the Global Rheumatology Alliance registry in terms of these steps. We identify how and why these steps were adapted or modified. In Phase 1 of registry development, the purpose of the registry and key stakeholders were identified on online platforms, Twitter and Slack. Phase 2 consisted of protocol and data collection form development, team building and the implementation of governance and policies. RESULTS: All key steps of the registry development best practices framework were met, though with the need for adaptation in some areas. Outputs of the registry, two months after initial conception, are also described. CONCLUSION: The Global Rheumatology Alliance registry will provide highly useful, timely data to inform clinical care and identify further research priorities for people with rheumatic disease with coronavirus disease 2019. The formation of an international team, easily able to function in online environments and resulting in rapid deployment of a registry is a model that can be adapted for other disease states and future global collaborations.

Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic diseases remain poorly understood. The aim was to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation status in people with rheumatic disease. METHODS: Case series of individuals with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry: 24 March 2020 to 20 April 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs of hospitalisation. Age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic disease diagnosis, comorbidities and rheumatic disease medications taken immediately prior to infection were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 600 cases from 40 countries were included. Nearly half of the cases were hospitalised (277, 46%) and 55 (9%) died. In multivariable-adjusted models, prednisone dose ≥10 mg/day was associated with higher odds of hospitalisation (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.96). Use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) alone or in combination with biologics/Janus Kinase inhibitors was not associated with hospitalisation (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.17 and OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.46, respectively). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use was not associated with hospitalisation status (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF) use was associated with a reduced odds of hospitalisation (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.81), while no association with antimalarial use (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.57) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: We found that glucocorticoid exposure of ≥10 mg/day is associated with a higher odds of hospitalisation and anti-TNF with a decreased odds of hospitalisation in patients with rheumatic disease. Neither exposure to DMARDs nor NSAIDs were associated with increased odds of hospitalisation.

Airmen and health-care providers' attitudes toward the use of genomic sequencing in the US Air Force: findings from the MilSeq Project.

PURPOSE: The use of genomic sequencing (GS) in military settings poses unique considerations, including the potential for GS to impact service members' careers. The MilSeq Project investigated the use of GS in clinical care of active duty Airmen in the United States Air Force (USAF). METHODS: We assessed perceived risks, benefits, and attitudes toward use of GS in the USAF among patient participants (n = 93) and health-care provider participants (HCPs) (n = 12) prior to receiving or disclosing GS results. RESULTS: Participants agreed that there are health benefits associated with GS (90% patients, 75% HCPs), though more HCPs (75%) than patients (40%) agreed that there are risks (p = 0.048). The majority of both groups (67% HCPs, 77% patients) agreed that they trust the USAF with genetic information, but far fewer agreed that genetic information should be used to make decisions about deployment (5% patients, 17% HCPs) or duty assignments (3% patients, 17% HCPs). Despite their hesitancy, patients were supportive of the USAF testing for nondisease traits that could impact their duty performance. Eighty-seven percent of patients did not think their GS results would influence their career. CONCLUSION: Results suggest favorable attitudes toward the use of GS in the USAF when not used for deployment or assignment decisions.

Longitudinal studies that use data collected as part of usual care risk reporting biased results: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal studies using data collected as part of usual care risk providing biased results if visit times are related to the outcome of interest. Statistical methods for mitigating this bias are available but rarely used. This lack of use could be attributed to a lack of need or to a lack of awareness of the issue. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of longitudinal studies that used data collected as part of patients' usual care and were published in MEDLINE or EMBASE databases between January 2005 through May 13th 2015. We asked whether the extent of and reasons for variability in visit times were reported on, and in cases where there was a need to account for informativeness of visit times, whether an appropriate method was used. RESULTS: Of 44 eligible articles, 57% (n = 25) reported on the total follow-up time, 7% (n = 3) on the gaps between visits, and 57% (n = 25) on the number of visits per patient; 78% (n = 34) reported on at least one of these. Two studies assessed predictors of visit times, and 86% of studies did not report enough information to assess whether there was a need to account for informative follow-up. Only one study used a method designed to account for informative visit times. CONCLUSIONS: The low proportion of studies reporting on whether there were important predictors of visit times suggests that researchers are unaware of the potential for bias when data is collected as part of usual care and visit times are irregular. Guidance on the potential for bias and on the reporting of longitudinal studies subject to irregular follow-up is needed.

Patient perspectives on telemedicine use in rheumatology during the COVID-19 pandemic: survey results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid adoption of telemedicine in rheumatology. We described perspectives of patients with rheumatic diseases related to telemedicine use. METHODS: An anonymous online survey for people with rheumatic diseases was launched in January 2021. We collected data on reasons for telemedicine use, perceived benefits, disadvantages and obstacles of telemedicine, perceived telemedicine effectiveness for different clinical tasks, level of satisfaction with telemedicine use, and future preferences for telemedicine. We summarized results with descriptive statistics and identified themes in free text responses to describe perspectives of telemedicine qualitatively. RESULTS: We received 596 complete responses (85% female and 47% 41-60 years old). During the COVID-19 pandemic, 78% (467/596) of respondents used telemedicine, and 61% (283/467) of telemedicine users reported that telemedicine was as effective or more effective than an in-person visit. Younger participants and those in North America reported effectiveness and satisfaction with telemedicine at higher frequencies. Participants reported similar effectiveness to in-person visits for making medication changes and discussing disease symptoms or complications. CONCLUSION: Most respondents found telemedicine at least as effective as in-person visits. Participants found telemedicine to be effective for specific scenarios, such as making medication changes and discussion of disease activity. Telemedicine may continue to be of importance in the care of patients with rheumatic diseases post pandemic, but likely for specific subsets of patients for specific visit indications. Key Points • Most patients with rheumatic disease found telemedicine as effective as in-person visits, particularly for some indications.

Treatment of critical bleeding events in patients with immune thrombocytopenia: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Critical bleeding events in adults and children with ITP are medical emergencies; however, evidence-based treatment protocols are lacking. Due to the severe thrombocytopenia, (typically platelet count less than 20 × 109/L), a critical bleed portends a high risk of death or disability. We plan to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for critical bleeding in patients with ITP that will inform evidence-based recommendations. METHODS: Literature searches will be conducted in four electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed. Eligible studies will be randomized controlled trials or observational studies that enrolled patients with ITP describing one or more interventions for the management of critical bleeding. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation will be conducted independently and in duplicate using Covidence and Excel. Outcomes will be pooled for meta-analysis where appropriate or summarized descriptively. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology will be used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes of interest will include frequency of critical bleeds, mortality and bleeding-related mortality, bleeding resolution, platelet count, and disability. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based treatments for critical bleeding in patients with ITP are needed to improve patient outcomes and standardize care in the emergency setting. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42020161206.