Impact of exposure to patients with COVID-19 on residents and fellows: an international survey of 1420 trainees.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how self-reported level of exposure to patients with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) affected the perceived safety, training and well-being of residents and fellows. METHODS: We administered an anonymous, voluntary, web-based survey to a convenience sample of trainees worldwide. The survey was distributed by email and social media posts from April 20th to May 11th, 2020. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for in March and April 2020 (0, 1-30, 31-60, >60). Survey questions addressed (1) safety and access to personal protective equipment (PPE), (2) training and professional development and (3) well-being and burnout. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 1420 trainees (73% residents, 27% fellows), most commonly from the USA (n=670), China (n=150), Saudi Arabia (n=76) and Taiwan (n=75). Trainees who cared for a greater number of patients with COVID-19 were more likely to report limited access to PPE and COVID-19 testing and more likely to test positive for COVID-19. Compared with trainees who did not take care of patients with COVID-19 , those who took care of 1-30 patients (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.80, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.51), 31-60 patients (AOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.86 to 5.88) and >60 patients (AOR 4.03, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.63) were increasingly more likely to report burnout. Trainees were very concerned about the negative effects on training opportunities and professional development irrespective of the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for. CONCLUSION: Exposure to patients with COVID-19 is significantly associated with higher burnout rates in physician trainees.

Impact of sex and gender on axSpA diagnosis and outcomes.

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was historically considered a disease of men, largely due to the recognition of a more severe, progressive phenotype, ankylosing spondylitis (AS; or radiographic axSpA, r-axSpA) aiding the clinical diagnosis [1,2]. Data demonstrating the near equal prevalence of axSpA in women only started to emerge in the last decades, highlighting intrinsic differences in disease phenotype, and clinical and imaging characteristics between sexes, which partly explain the issue of underdiagnosis in women. Similar to the evolving understanding of spondyloarthritis and the diseases that term describes, the concepts of gender and sex also warrant further clarification to accurately assess their potential role in disease pathophysiology and phenotypic expression. This narrative review delves into the most recent evidence from the literature on the true prevalence of sex differences in axSpA, and the impact of sex and gender on diagnosis, disease characteristics and treatment response in this, still underserved, chronic disease.

Social Media for Research Discourse, Dissemination, and Collaboration in Rheumatology.

Social media has become an important venue for rheumatologists, patients, organizations, and other stakeholders to discuss recent research advances in diagnosis and management of rheumatic disorders. In this article, we describe the current state of how social media may enhance dissemination, discourse, and collaboration in rheumatology research. Social media may refer to social platforms like Twitter and Instagram or digital media like podcasts and other websites that are operated for providing as free, open-access medical education (FOAM). Twitter has been one of the most active social media venues and continues to host a vibrant rheumatology community. Examples of research discussions on Twitter include organic user tweets, educational threads ("tweetorials"), live-tweeting academic conferences, and journals posting recently-accepted articles. Some research collaborations have been initiated through social media interactions. Social media may also directly contribute to research by facilitating the recruitment of study participants and the collection of survey-based data. Thus, social media is an evolving and important tool to enhance research discourse, dissemination, and collaboration in rheumatology.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Outcomes in Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID-19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel-Haenszel formula with random effects models. RESULTS: Of the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta-analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16-2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08-2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID-19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD. CONCLUSION: Patients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and an increased mortality rate.

Early experience of COVID-19 vaccination in adults with systemic rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey.

BACKGROUND: We describe the early experiences of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: From 2 April to 30 April 2021, we conducted an online, international survey of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination. We collected patient-reported data on clinician communication, beliefs and intent about discontinuing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around the time of vaccination, and patient-reported adverse events after vaccination. RESULTS: We analysed 2860 adults with systemic rheumatic diseases who received COVID-19 vaccination (mean age 55.3 years, 86.7% female, 86.3% white). Types of COVID-19 vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (53.2%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (22.6%), Moderna (21.3%), Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (1.7%) and others (1.2%). The most common rheumatic disease was rheumatoid arthritis (42.3%), and 81.2% of respondents were on a DMARD. The majority (81.9%) reported communicating with clinicians about vaccination. Most (66.9%) were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy, although many (44.3%) were concerned about rheumatic disease flares. After vaccination, the most reported patient-reported adverse events were fatigue/somnolence (33.4%), headache (27.7%), muscle/joint pains (22.8%) and fever/chills (19.9%). Rheumatic disease flares that required medication changes occurred in 4.6%. CONCLUSION: Among adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination, patient-reported adverse events were typical of those reported in the general population. Most patients were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy. The relatively low frequency of rheumatic disease flare requiring medications was reassuring.

Swinging the pendulum: lessons learned from public discourse concerning hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Several months into the COVID-19 pandemic, safe and effective treatments against this global health disaster have yet to be identified. Clinical research trials around the world are underway testing a wide array of possible medications. In particular, the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and treatment has created many unprecedented challenges for the scientific community and the public. AREAS COVERED: We critically assessed major events from February - May 2020 that contributed to widespread use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19. We aimed to explore how opinions toward hydroxychloroquine may shift from early enthusiasm (based on in vitro and preliminary clinical data) to the hope for a miracle cure (through communication and promotion of questionable results) and, finally, to a rise of skepticism as more in-depth analyses are emerging. EXPERT OPINION: Mindful and rigorous acquisition of data, as well as its interpretation, are essential to an effective pandemic response. The rapid and premature promotion of results has had major implications for global crisis management, even creating distrust among the public. It is crucial for the medical and scientific community to incorporate the lessons learned from this situation.

Acute respiratory viral adverse events during use of antirheumatic disease therapies: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is an acute respiratory viral infection that threatens people worldwide, including people with rheumatic disease, although it remains unclear to what extent various antirheumatic disease therapies increase susceptibility to complications of viral respiratory infections. OBJECTIVE: The present study undertakes a scoping review of available evidence regarding the frequency and severity of acute respiratory viral adverse events related to antirheumatic disease therapies. METHODS: Online databases were used to identify, since database inception, studies reporting primary data on acute respiratory viral infections in patients utilizing antirheumatic disease therapies. Independent reviewer pairs charted data from eligible studies using a standardized data abstraction tool. RESULTS: A total of 180 studies were eligible for qualitative analysis. While acknowledging that the extant literature has a lack of specificity in reporting of acute viral infections or complications thereof, the data suggest that use of glucocorticoids, JAK inhibitors (especially high-dose), TNF inhibitors, and anti-IL-17 agents may be associated with an increased frequency of respiratory viral events. Available data suggest no increased frequency or risk of respiratory viral events with NSAIDs, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, or apremilast. One large cohort study demonstrated an association with leflunomide use and increased risk of acute viral respiratory events compared to non-use. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified that some medication classes may confer increased risk of acute respiratory viral infections. However, definitive data are lacking and future studies should address this knowledge gap.