Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Rheumatic Diseases in Health Systems of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative prevalence of 8 rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) across racial and ethnic groups within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet). METHODS: Electronic health records from participating PCORnet institutions and systems from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018, were used to identify adult patients with ≥ 2 diagnosis codes for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), osteoporosis (OP), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), giant cell arteritis (GCA), and Takayasu arteritis (TAK). Among those with race and ethnicity data available, we compared prevalence of RMDs by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Data from 28,059,546 patients were available for analysis. RA was more common in patients who were American Indian or Alaska Native vs White, with a prevalence of 11.57 vs 10.11/1000 (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.09-1.22). SLE was more common in patients who were Black or African American (6.73/1000), American Indian or Alaska Native (3.82/1000), and Asian (3.39/1000) vs White (2.80/1000; OR 2.43, 95% CI 2.39-2.46; OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.25-1.53; OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.21-1.31, respectively). SLE was more common in patients who were Hispanic vs non-Hispanic (prevalence 3.93 vs 3.45/1000, OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12-1.16). TAK was more common in patients who were Asian vs White (prevalence 0.05 vs 0.04/1000, OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.00-2.03). OP, RA, and the vasculitides were all more common in patients who were White vs Black or African American. CONCLUSION: These data provide important information on the prevalence of RMDs by race and ethnicity in the United States. PCORnet can be used as a reliable data source to study RMDs within a large representative population.

Assessment of Real-World Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Initiating Biologic Agents for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases: An Observational Study in Four Patient-Powered Research Networks.

Background: The most reliable and meaningful approach for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the evaluation of real-world clinical effectiveness of biologics in the treatment of autoimmune diseases is u ncertain. This study aimed to assess and compare the proportions of patients who had abnormalities in PROs measuring important general health domains at the initiation of treatment with biologics, as well as the effects of baseline abnormalities on subsequent improvement. Methods: PROs were collected for patient participants with inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and vasculitis using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments. Scores were reported as T-scores normalized to the general population in the United States. Baseline PROs scores were collected near the time of biologic initiation, and follow-up scores were collected 3 to 8 months later. In addition to summary statistics, the proportion of patients with PROs abnormalities (scores ≥5 units worse than the population norm) was determined. Baseline and follow-up scores were compared, and an improvement of ≥5 units was considered significant. Results: There was wide variation across autoimmune diseases in baseline PROs scores for all domains. For example, the proportion of participants with abnormal baseline pain interference scores ranged from 52% to 93%. When restricted to participants with baseline PROs abnormalities, the proportion of participants experiencing an improvement of ≥5 units was substantially higher. Conclusion: As expected, many patients experienced improvement in PROs following initiation of treatment with biologics for autoimmune diseases. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of participants did not exhibit abnormalities in all PROs domains at baseline, and these participants appear less likely to experience improvement. For PROs to be reliably and meaningfully included in the evaluation of real-world medication effectiveness, more knowledge and careful consideration are needed to select the most appropriate patient populations and subgroups for inclusion and evaluation in studies measuring change in PROs.

Engaging Multistakeholder Perspectives to Identify Patient-Centered Research Priorities Regarding Vaccine Uptake Among Adults With Autoimmune Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to prioritize topics for future patient-centered research to increase uptake of common vaccines, such as for pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza, herpes zoster, human papillomavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, among adults living with autoimmune conditions. METHODS: A steering committee (SC) was formed that included clinicians, patients, patient advocates, and researchers associated with rheumatic diseases (psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis), inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple sclerosis. Through a scoping review and discussions, SC members identified research topics regarding vaccine uptake and/or hesitancy for prioritization. A larger multistakeholder alliance that included patients and patient advocates, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, regulators, and vaccine manufacturers conducted a modified Delphi exercise online with three rating rounds and one ranking round. Frequency analysis and comparisons across stakeholder groups were conducted. A weighted ranking score was generated for each item in the ranking round for final prioritization. RESULTS: Through the Delphi process, 33 research topics were identified, of which 13 topics were rated as critical by more than 70% of all stakeholders (n = 31). The two highest ranked critical topics per the full stakeholder group were "How well a vaccine works for adults with autoimmune conditions" and "How beliefs about vaccine safety affect vaccine uptake." CONCLUSION: A multistakeholder group identified key topics as critically important priorities for future research to decrease vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake of vaccines for adults with autoimmune conditions.

Self-Reported Data and Physician-Reported Data in Patients With Eosinophilic Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis: Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-based registries can help advance research on rare diseases such as eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), a complex multiorgan form of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare patient-reported and physician-reported data on manifestations, treatments, and outcomes for patients with EGPA. METHODS: We completed a comparative analysis of patients ≥18 years with EGPA in Canada and the United States from the following 2 cohorts: (1) The Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network (VPPRN), a self-enrolled secure portal with patient-entered data updated quarterly (2014-2019) and (2) the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium (VCRC) observational studies, a physician-entered database (2003-2019) of patients who fulfilled the 1990 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for EGPA. The studied parameters included demographic characteristics, clinical manifestations, ANCA status, treatments, and relapses. RESULTS: Data from 195 patients with a validated diagnosis of EGPA in the VPPRN and 354 patients enrolled in the VCRC were analyzed. Compared to the VCRC cohort, the patients in the VPPRN cohort were more likely to be female (135/195, 69.2% compared to 209/354, 59%; P=.02) and younger at diagnosis (47.3 compared to 50.0 years; P=.03); both cohorts reported similar frequencies of asthma (177/184, 96.2% in the VPPRN cohort compared to 329/354, 92.9% in the VCRC cohort; P=.13) and cardiac manifestations (44/153, 28.8% compared to 75/354, 21.2%; P=.06), but the VPPRN cohort reported less frequent lung manifestations other than asthma and more frequent disease manifestations in all other organ systems. The ANCA positivity was 48.9% (64/131) in the VPPRN patients compared to 38.9% (123/316; P=.05) in the VCRC cohort. Relapsing disease after study enrollment was reported in 32.3% (63/195) of patients in the VPPRN compared to 35.7% (99/277) of patients in the VCRC. Most therapies (GC, cyclophosphamide, mepolizumab) were used at similar frequencies in both groups, except for rituximab with VPPRN patients reporting more use than the VCRC cohort (47/195, 24.1% compared to 29/277, 10.5%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients and physicians report manifestations of EGPA at similar frequencies. However, observed differences between patient and physician reports imply the potential occurrence of selection biases. These results support the use of patient-reported data in EGPA but also the need for careful consideration of disease-specific definitions for the study of EGPA and how patient- and physician-reported data are collected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00315380, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00315380; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01241305, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01241305.

Patient Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Telemedicine for Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceptions and preferences of telemedicine among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Attitudes about telemedicine (i.e., telemedicine acceptability), evaluated using the validated Telemedicine Perception Questionnaire (TMPQ), and visit satisfaction were assessed for different telemedicine experiences and types of autoimmune rheumatic disease. RESULTS: Of 3,369 invitations, 819 responses were received. Participants had a mean ± SD age of 58.6 ± 11.6 years and were mostly White (n = 759, or 92.7%) and female (n = 702, or 85.7%). Of the 618 participants who said that telemedicine was available to them, 449 (72.7%) reported having a telemedicine visit, with 303 (67.5%) reporting attending a telemedicine video visit. On a 0 to 10 scale, the mean ± SD visit satisfaction score was 7.3 ± 1.8, with 25.8% of respondents being very satisfied (scores of 9 or 10). Video visits and higher TMPQ scores were associated with higher satisfaction. Compared to those who did not experience a telemedicine visit, patients who did were more likely to prefer telemedicine (video or phone) for routine visits (73.7% versus 44.3%; P < 0.001), reviewing test results (64.8% versus 53.8%; P < 0.001), when considering changing medications (40.5% versus 26.8%; P < 0.001), and when starting a new injectable medication (18.9% versus 12.7%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases frequently had telemedicine visits, with the majority held via video, and were satisfied with these visits. These results suggest that because patients prefer telemedicine for certain visit reasons, maximizing effective use of telemedicine will require personalized patient scheduling.

Medication Interruptions and Subsequent Disease Flares During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Online Study of Patients With Rheumatic Disease.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess trends in anxiety and interruptions in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use among patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate whether DMARD interruptions were associated with disease flares. METHODS: ArthritisPower, the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network, and other patient organizations invited members to join a 52-week longitudinal study, with baseline surveys completed March 29 to June 30, 2020, with follow-up through May 2021. Logistic regression incorporating generalized estimating equations evaluated associations between interruptions in DMARD use and self-reported disease flares at the next survey, adjusting for demographic characteristics, medications, disease, and calendar time. RESULTS: Among 2,424 patients completing a median of 5 follow-up surveys, the mean age was 57 years, 87% were female, and the most common conditions were rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, and psoriatic arthritis. Average Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety T scores decreased from April 2020 (58.7) to May 2021 (53.7) (P < 0.001 for trend). Interruptions in DMARD use decreased from April (11.2%) to December 2020 (7.5%) (P < 0.001) but increased through May 2021 (14.0%) (P < 0.001). Interruptions in DMARD use were associated with a significant increase in severe flares (rated ≥6 of 10) at the next survey (12.9% versus 8.0% [odds ratio (OR) 1.71 (95% confidence interval [95% CI 1.23, 2.36]) although not any flare (OR 1.18 [95% CI 0.89, 1.58])]. CONCLUSION: Anxiety and interruptions in DMARD use initially decreased over time, but DMARD interruptions increased during 2021, possibly related to an increase in COVID-19 cases or vaccine availability. Interruptions in DMARD use were associated with increased rates of severe disease flares, highlighting the importance of avoiding unnecessary DMARD interruptions.

Diagnostic delays in vasculitis and factors associated with time to diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with vasculitis, a set of rare diseases, encounter delays in obtaining an accurate diagnosis which can lead to substantial morbidity and increased mortality. This study sought to describe the diagnostic journey of patients with vasculitis and identify factors associated with time to diagnosis. METHODS: Patients with vasculitis enrolled in an online registry completed a two-stage study: Stage 1: survey of open-ended questions about patients' diagnostic journeys and perceived factors associated with rapid or delayed diagnosis; Stage 2: survey with specific questions based on data from Stage 1 and additional investigator-identified factors. RESULTS: 375 patients with vasculitis participated in Stage 1; 456 patients participated in Stage 2. 85% of patients were seen by a healthcare provider within 3 months of the onset of symptoms. The median time to diagnosis of vasculitis was 7 months. 313/456 (73%) of patients were misdiagnosed initially. 40% of diagnoses were made in a hospital setting; 2% of diagnoses were made at a specialized vasculitis center. 60% of patients had at least 1 visit to an emergency room prior to diagnosis. Unemployment, time to travel to a medical center > 1 h, initial misdiagnosis, and delays in seeing a specialist were all associated with longer times to diagnosis. 373/456 (82%) of patients reported that a delayed diagnosis had negative consequences on their health. CONCLUSION: Patients with vasculitis encounter substantial delays in achieving an accurate diagnosis and these delays are associated with negative health consequences. Both patient-related factors and healthcare-related factors are associated with diagnostic delays.

Patient-Powered Research Networks of the Autoimmune Research Collaborative: Rationale, Capacity, and Future Directions.

Patient-Powered Research Networks (PPRNs) are US-based registry infrastructures co-created by advocacy groups, patient research partners, academic investigators, and other healthcare stakeholders. Patient-Powered Research Networks collect information directly from patients to conduct and disseminate the results of patient-centered/powered research that helps patients make more informed decisions about their healthcare. Patient-Powered Research Networks gather and utilize real-world data and patient-reported outcomes to conduct comparative effectiveness, safety, and other research, and leverage the Internet to accomplish this effectively and efficiently. Four PPRNs focused on autoimmune and immune-mediated conditions formed the Autoimmune Research Collaborative: ArthritisPower (rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and other rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases), IBD Partners (inflammatory bowel disease), iConquerMS (multiple sclerosis), and the Vasculitis PPRN (vasculitis). The Autoimmune Research Collaborative aims to inform the healthcare decision making of patients, care partners, and other stakeholders, such as clinicians, regulators, and payers. Illustrated by practical applications from the Autoimmune Research Collaborative and its constituent PPRNs, this article discusses the shared capacities and challenges of the PPRN model, and the opportunities presented by collaborating across autoimmune conditions to design, conduct, and disseminate patient-centered outcomes research.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients Living With Vasculitis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the concerns and health-related behaviors in patients with vasculitis during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in North America. METHODS: Patients with vasculitis in North America were invited to complete an online survey through the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network in collaboration with the Vasculitis Foundation and the Relapsing Polychondritis Foundation. Questions focused on concerns and behaviors related to doctors' visits, tests, medication, and telehealth use. Factors affecting their concern and health-related behaviors were determined. RESULTS: Data from 662 patients were included: 90% of patients were White, 78% were women, 83% expressed moderate or high levels of concern about COVID-19, and 87% reported that their vasculitis moderately or extremely affected their level of concern. Older age, female sex, lung disease, and immunosuppression were associated with greater concern. Doctors' visits, laboratory tests, and other tests were avoided by 66%, 46%, and 40% of patients, respectively. Younger age, urban location, higher income, higher concern levels, and prednisone use (>10 mg/day) were associated with greater likelihood of avoiding visits or tests. Ten percent of patients on immunosuppressive therapy stopped their medication. Twenty-nine percent patients on rituximab avoided an infusion. Forty-four percent of patients had telehealth visits; more visits were reported for younger patients, for patients on glucocorticoids, and in Canada versus the United States. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with vasculitis have high levels of concern and exhibit potentially harmful health-related behaviors. Health care use varies across different demographic groups and geographic regions. Specific strategies are warranted to facilitate engagement of these patients with the health care system during the pandemic.

Clinical Characteristics of an Internet-Based Cohort of Patient-Reported Diagnosis of Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis and Microscopic Polyangiitis: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Utilizing the traditional centers of excellence approach to conduct clinical trials involving rare diseases remains challenging. Patient-based registries have been shown to be both feasible and valid in several other diseases. OBJECTIVE: This report outlines the clinical characteristics of a large internet registry cohort of participants with a self-reported diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis. METHODS: Patients with a self-reported diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis in an internet-based prospective longitudinal cohort (from the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network) were included. Data on symptoms, diagnostic testing, and treatment were collected using standardized questionnaires. RESULTS: The study compared patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (n=762) and patients with microscopic polyangiitis (n=164). Of the cohort, 97.7% (904/925) reported the diagnosis had been confirmed by a physician. Compared to microscopic polyangiitis, patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis reported significantly more ear, nose, and throat manifestations (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 641/723, 88.7%; microscopic polyangiitis: 89/164, 54.3%; z=10.42, P<.001), fevers (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 325/588, 55.3%; microscopic polyangiitis: 64/139, 46.0%; z=1.96, P=.05), joint involvement (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 549/688, 79.8%; microscopic polyangiitis: 106/154, 68.8%; z=2.96, P=.003), and pulmonary involvement (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 523/734, 71.3%; microscopic polyangiitis: 90/154, 58.4%; z=3.13, P=.002). Compared to microscopic polyangiitis, patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis reported significantly less renal involvement (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 457/743, 61.5%; microscopic polyangiitis: 135/163, 82.8%; z=-5.18, P<.001) and renal transplantation (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 10/721, 1.4%; microscopic polyangiitis: 7/164, 4.3%; z=-2.43, P=.02). Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positivity was reported in 94.2% (652/692) of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and 96.1% (147/153) of patients with microscopic polyangiitis. A biopsy showing vasculitis was reported in 77.0% (562/730) of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and 81.9% (131/160) of patients with microscopic polyangiitis. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, internet-based cohort of patients with a self-reported diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis, disease manifestations were consistent with expectations for each type of vasculitis. Given the rarity of these and other vasculitides, conducting some types of research through internet-based registries may provide an efficient alternative to inperson, center-of-excellence clinical trials.

Patient involvement in medical research: what patients and physicians learn from each other.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in actively involving patients in the process of medical research to help ensure research is relevant and important to both researchers and people affected by the disease under study. This project examined the recently formed Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network (VPPRN), a rare disease research network, to better understand what investigators and patients learned from working on research teams together. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted by phone with patients, physician/PhD-investigators, and study managers/staff who participated in the network. The question guiding the interviews and observational analysis was: "What have investigators and patients learned about working together while working on VPPRN teams?" Interview transcripts were analyzed in combination with observations from multiple in-person and telephone meetings. RESULTS: Transcripts and notes were reviewed and coded from 22 interviews conducted among 13 patient-partners, 5 study managers/staff, and 4 MD or PhD-investigators, and 6 in-person and 42 telephone/web-conference meetings. Patient-partners and investigators characterized their working relationships with one another, what they learned from their collaborations, and provided recommendations for future teams of patient-partners and investigators. Major themes included the great benefits of communicating about activities, being open to listening to each group member, and the importance of setting reasonable expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Direct engagement in research design and development by patient-partners and co-learning between investigators and patient-partners can result in a positive and productive working relationship for all members of a medical research team. This bi-directional engagement directly benefits and impacts research design, participant recruitment to studies, and study subject retention.