Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Scand J Rheumatol ; : 1-6, 2022 May 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20239563

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) treated with immunosuppressive drugs. METHOD: A list of 4633 patients on targeted - biological or targeted synthetic - DMARDs in March 2020 was linked to a case-control study that includes all cases of COVID-19 in Scotland. RESULTS: By 22 November 2021, 433 of the 4633 patients treated with targeted DMARDS had been diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 58 had been hospitalized. With all those in the population not on DMARDs as the reference category, the rate ratio for hospitalized COVID-19 associated with DMARD treatment was 2.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.02-2.26] in those on conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs, 2.01 (95% CI 1.38-2.91) in those on tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors as the only targeted agent, and 3.83 (95% CI 2.65-5.56) in those on other targeted DMARDs. Among those on csDMARDs, rate ratios for hospitalized COVID-19 were lowest at 1.66 (95% CI 1.51-1.82) in those on methotrexate and highest at 5.4 (95% CI 4.4-6.7) in those on glucocorticoids at an average dose > 10 mg/day prednisolone equivalent. CONCLUSION: The risk of hospitalized COVID-19 is elevated in IRD patients treated with immunosuppressive drugs compared with the general population. Of these drugs, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and TNF inhibitors carry the lowest risk. The highest risk is associated with prednisolone. A larger study is needed to estimate reliably the risks associated with each class of targeted DMARD.

2.
Rheumatology (United Kingdom) ; 62(Supplement 2):ii72, 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2322547

ABSTRACT

Background/Aims During the COVID-19 pandemic rheumatology services were advised to limit face to face contact, with remote telemedicine used instead. Although suitable for some people, issues have been highlighted with telemedicine. The frequency and proportion of remote appointments during the pandemic has not been described, or the socio-demographic characteristics of those accessing remote or in-person rheumatology care. This study aims to describe rheumatology healthcare utilisation and mode of appointment (remote/in-person) in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), prior to, and during the pandemic in England. Methods A retrospective prevalent cohort study of people with RA, identified using a validated algorithm, as of 1st April 2019 using electronic health record data (OpenSAFELY). Outpatient rheumatology appointments between 1st April 2019 and 31st March 2022 were identified. For each year, the number of outpatient appointments, mode of appointment (remote/in-person) and patient socio-demographic characteristics were described. Results 130,884 people with RA were identified. Since the start of the pandemic, the proportion of people without any appointments in a 12-month period increased from 28.5% in 2019/20 to 33.3% in 2020/ 21 and has not recovered. Older people were most frequently not seen (51% of people >80 years in 2020/21 and 2021/22). Of appointments where mode was known, 54.4% of people with appointments in the year from April 2020 were only seen remotely, reducing to 35.1% in the year from April 2021 (Table 1). The proportion with all remote appointments increased with increasing age, comprising 62% of people >80 years in 2020. This age gradient persisted in 2021, though proportions of those >80 years with all-remote appointments was lower (44%). Compared to urban dwellers, a higher proportion of those living in rural areas had all remote appointments in 2020 (58% vs 53%) and 2021 (38% vs 34%). Conclusion During the pandemic, one third of people with RA were not seen at all over a 12-month period and these were more frequently older people. Over half of people were only seen remotely in 2020, decreasing to one-third in 2021. Given the limitations of remote appointments it is unknown whether this increased frequency of remote appointments will impact long-term outcomes.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL