Qualitative interview study of rheumatology patients' experiences of COVID-19 shielding to explore the physical and psychological impact and identify associated support needs.

OBJECTIVE: Many clinically extremely vulnerable rheumatology patients have only recently ceased shielding from COVID-19, while some continue to minimise in-person contact. The objective of this study was to understand the impact of shielding and associated support needs in patients with rheumatic conditions and to understand how rheumatology teams can meet these needs both currently and in future pandemics. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: The study was conducted in the Southwest of England using a case-study design. The participants were 15 patients with rheumatic conditions who were advised to shield and/or chose to shield at any time during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Qualitative data collected via telephone and online semi-structured interviews and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen interviews were conducted. Three main themes represent the data:'Just shove them over there in the corner' captures changes in patients' self-perception. They felt different to most other people, vulnerable and left behind. The initial sense of shock was followed by a sense of loss as changes became long term.'A long and lonely road' captures patients' psychological isolation due to a perceived lack of understanding and support. This included having to prove their health status and justify their shielding behaviours, which impacted their relationships. At times, they felt abandoned by their healthcare providers.'You can't just flip a switch' captures the difficulty of getting back to pre-pandemic normal after shielding. Patients did not recognise themselves physically and mentally. They wanted to collaborate with health professionals and identified the need for specific guidance to support their recovery. CONCLUSION: Patients are dealing with lasting physical and mental effects from shielding and consequences of delayed healthcare. Health professionals need time and resources to ask about patients' well-being, identify their health needs and refer/signpost to appropriate sources of support.

Jaw claudication and jaw stiffness in giant cell arteritis: secondary analysis of a qualitative research dataset.

Objective: Jaw symptoms can be a vital clue to the diagnosis of GCA. Guidelines recommend more intensive treatment if jaw claudication is present. We sought to explore how patients with GCA described their jaw symptoms. Methods: We carried out a secondary, qualitative analysis of interview data from 36 participants from the UK (n = 25) and Australia (n = 11), originally collected in order to develop a patient-reported outcome measure for GCA. In all cases, GCA had been confirmed by biopsy/imaging. Interview transcripts were organized within QSR NVivo 12 software and analysed using template analysis. Themes were refined through discussion among the research team, including a patient partner. Results: Twenty of 36 participants reported jaw symptoms associated with GCA. The median age of these 20 participants was 76.5 years; 60% were female. Five themes were identified: physical sensations; impact on function; impact on diet; symptom response with CSs; and attribution to other causes. Physical sensations included ache, cramp, stiffness and 'lockjaw'. Functional impacts included difficulty in eating/chewing, cleaning teeth, speaking or opening the mouth. Dietary impacts included switching to softer food. Response to CSs was not always immediate. Jaw symptoms were initially mis-attributed by some participants to arthritis, age or viral illnesses; or by health-care professionals to a dental cavity, ear infection or teeth-grinding. Conclusion: Jaw symptoms in GCA are diverse and can lead to diagnostic confusion with primary temporomandibular joint disorder, potentially contributing to delay in GCA diagnosis. Further research is needed to determine the relationship of jaw stiffness to jaw claudication.

Consensus of the definitions of the OMERACT glucocorticoid impact core domain set for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Glucocorticoid (GC) Impact Working Group has been working to develop a core domain set to measure the impact of GCs on patients living with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. The mandatory domains previously identified for inclusion in all clinical trials measuring the GC effects include infection, bone fragility, mood disturbance, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, and mortality. Before progressing to instrument selection, the Working Group sought to establish precise definitions of all mandatory domains within the core domain set. METHODS: OMERACT methodology was applied with the use of evidence and consensus-based decision making of all stakeholder groups (patient research partners, health care professionals, clinician researchers, industry members and methodologists) to develop detailed definitions for the broad domain, target domain and domain components, taking into consideration sources of variability that could affect measurement of the domain.  The working group synthesized prior qualitative studies, quantitative work, and results from Delphi rounds, to develop a rich definition of 'what' is to be measured. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, the OMERACT Working Group on GC Impact conducted virtual meetings to establish domain definitions. First, we mapped each domain onto an OMERACT Core Area. All domains were primarily represented within the Pathophysiological Manifestations Core Area, except from Fatigue which was primarily Life Impact and Weight which spanned both Core Areas. Sources of variability included cultural factors, age, gender, education level, socioeconomic status, personal experiences, emotional state, and language barriers. The domain definitions will form the foundation for instrument selection and the initial step of domain / concept match and content validity in the OMERACT pillar of 'truth' before moving on to feasibility and discrimination. CONCLUSION: The OMERACT GC Impact Working Group has developed and agreed upon detailed domain definitions for core domains. Future steps of the working group are to select instruments and develop the core outcome measurement set for clinical trials measuring the impact of GC on patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Stroke frequency, associated factors, and clinical features in primary systemic vasculitis: a multicentric observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The cerebral vessels may be affected in primary systemic vasculitis (PSV), but little is known about cerebrovascular events (CVEs) in this population. This study aimed to determine the frequency of CVEs at the time of diagnosis of PSV, to identify factors associated with CVEs in PSV, and to explore features and outcomes of stroke in patients with PSV. METHODS: Data from adults newly diagnosed with PSV within the Diagnostic and Classification Criteria in VASculitis (DCVAS) study were analysed. Demographics, risk factors for vascular disease, and clinical features were compared between patients with PSV with and without CVE. Stroke subtypes and cumulative incidence of recurrent CVE during a prospective 6-month follow-up were also assessed. RESULTS: The analysis included 4828 PSV patients, and a CVE was reported in 169 (3.50%, 95% CI 3.00-4.06): 102 (2.13% 95% CI 1.73-2.56) with stroke and 81 (1.68% 95% CI 1.33-2.08) with transient ischemic attack (TIA). The frequency of CVE was highest in Behçet's disease (9.5%, 95% CI 5.79-14.37), polyarteritis nodosa (6.2%, 95% CI 3.25-10.61), and Takayasu's arteritis (6.0%, 95% CI 4.30-8.19), and lowest in microscopic polyangiitis (2.2%, 95% CI 1.09-3.86), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (2.0%, 95% CI 1.20-3.01), cryoglobulinaemic vasculitis (1.9%, 95% CI 0.05-9.89), and IgA-vasculitis (Henoch-Schönlein) (0.4%, 95% CI 0.01-2.05). PSV patients had a 11.9% cumulative incidence of recurrent CVE during a 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSION: CVEs affect a significant proportion of patients at time of PSV diagnosis, and the frequency varies widely among different vasculitis, being higher in Behçet's. Overall, CVE in PSV is not explained by traditional vascular risk factors and has a high risk of CVE recurrence.