From Acute Infection to Prolonged Health Consequences: Understanding Health Disparities and Economic Implications in Long COVID Worldwide.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a growing number of patients experiencing persistent symptoms and physiological changes after recovering from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, known as Long COVID. Long COVID is characterized by recurring symptoms and inflammation across multiple organ systems. Diagnosis can be challenging, influenced by factors like demographics, comorbidities, and immune responses. Long COVID impacts various organ systems and can have neuropsychological effects. Health disparities, particularly related to race, contribute to a higher burden of infection and ongoing symptoms in minority populations. Managing Long COVID entails addressing a spectrum of symptoms that encompass physical, cognitive, and psychological aspects. The recovery period for patients with Long COVID can vary significantly, influenced by factors like the severity of the disease, hospitalization, comorbidities, and age. Currently, there are no universally effective treatments, although certain interventions show promise, necessitating further research. Self-management and rehabilitation programs can provide relief, but more research is needed to establish their effectiveness. Preventive measures such as vaccination and the use of antiviral medications and metformin. It is imperative to conduct further research to develop evidence-based guidelines and gain a better understanding of the long-term implications of COVID-19. Long COVID could have substantial economic impact on the labor market, productivity, healthcare expenditures, and overall economic growth. To address the challenges patients with long-term complications face, there is a focus on strategies like promoting telework and flexible work arrangements to accommodate diverse symptoms, particularly chronic fatigue and other Long COVID effects. In conclusion, this review emphasizes the multifaceted complexity of Long COVID and the ongoing need to address its potential long-term health and economic impacts.

Corrigendum: Reproducibility and rigor in rheumatology research.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1073551.].

Bullous Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Successfully Treated With Intravenous Immunoglobulin and Mycophenolate Mofetil.

Bullous systemic lupus erythematosus (BSLE) is a rare autoimmune blistering disorder of cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) that typically manifests as an acute vesiculobullous eruption in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Also, it can rarely present as the initial clinical manifestation of SLE. There is no established US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) therapy for BSLE. We report a case of a 71-year-old Hispanic woman with SLE and lupus nephritis classes III and V who presented to the hospital with a worsening rash with painful, ruptured blisters involving the upper arms, chest, and back. Our patient did not respond to topical or systemic steroids but improved rapidly to combination therapy with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

Initial behaviors and attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine in sarcoidosis patients: results of a self-reporting questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with self-declared sarcoidosis are at increased risk of COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality for which vaccination can be lifesaving. Despite this, vaccine hesitancy remains a large barrier to global acceptance of vaccination against COVID-19. We aimed to identify individuals with sarcoidosis who had and had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 vaccine to 1) establish a safety profile of COVID-19 vaccination in those with sarcoidosis and 2) to elucidate factors that contribute to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: A questionnaire inquiring about COVID-19 vaccination status, vaccination side effects, and willingness for future vaccination was distributed from December 2020 to May 2021 to individuals with sarcoidosis living in the US and European countries. Details regarding sarcoidosis manifestations and treatment were solicited. Vaccine attitudes were classified as pro or anti-COVID-19 vaccination for subgroup analysis. RESULTS: At the time of questionnaire administration, 42% of respondents had already received a COVID-19 vaccination, most of whom either denied side effects or reported a local reaction only. Those off sarcoidosis therapy were more likely to report systemic side effects. Among subjects who had not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine, 27% of individuals reported they would not receive one once available. Reasons against vaccination were overwhelmingly related to the lack of confidence in vaccine safety and/or efficacy and less related to concerns associated with convenience or complacency. Black individuals, women, and younger adults were more likely to decline vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with sarcoidosis, COVID-19 vaccination is well-accepted and well-tolerated. Subjects on sarcoidosis therapy reported significantly less vaccination side effects, and thus the correlation between side effects, vaccine type, and vaccine efficacy requires further investigation. Strategies to improve vaccination should focus on improving knowledge and education regarding vaccine safety and efficacy, as well as targeting sources of misinformation, particularly in young, black, and female subpopulations.

Immune-mediated lung diseases: A narrative review.

The role of immunity in the pathogenesis of various pulmonary diseases, particularly interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), is being increasingly appreciated as mechanistic discoveries advance our knowledge in the field. Immune-mediated lung diseases demonstrate clinical and immunological heterogeneity and can be etiologically categorized into connective tissue disease (CTD)-associated, exposure-related, idiopathic, and other miscellaneous lung diseases including sarcoidosis, and post-lung transplant ILD. The immunopathogenesis of many of these diseases remains poorly defined and possibly involves either immune dysregulation, abnormal healing, chronic inflammation, or a combination of these, often in a background of genetic susceptibility. The heterogeneity and complex immunopathogenesis of ILDs complicate management, and thus a collaborative treatment team should work toward an individualized approach to address the unique needs of each patient. Current management of immune-mediated lung diseases is challenging; the choice of therapy is etiology-driven and includes corticosteroids, immunomodulatory drugs such as methotrexate, cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil, rituximab, or other measures such as discontinuation or avoidance of the inciting agent in exposure-related ILDs. Antifibrotic therapy is approved for some of the ILDs (e.g., idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis) and is being investigated for many others and has shown promising preliminary results. A dire need for advances in the management of immune-mediated lung disease persists in the absence of standardized management guidelines.

Vaccination in the Era of Immunosuppression.

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) are at increased risk for severe infections. Vaccine responses and safety profiles may differ between AIIRD patients and the general population. While patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) often experience diminished humoral responses and reduced vaccine efficacy, factors such as the type of immunosuppressant medications used and the specific vaccine employed contribute to these outcomes. Notably, individuals undergoing B cell depletion therapy tend to have poor vaccine immunogenicity. However, despite these considerations, vaccine responses are generally considered clinically sufficient. Ideally, immunosuppressed AIIRD patients should receive vaccinations at least two weeks before commencing immunosuppressive treatment. However, it is common for many patients to already be on immunosuppressants during the immunization process. Vaccination rarely triggers flares in AIIRDs; if flares occur, they are typically mild. Despite the heightened infection risk, including COVID-19, among AIIRD patients with rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, sarcoidosis, and other diseases on immunosuppressants, the vaccination rates remain suboptimal. The future directions of vaccination in the era of immunosuppression will likely involve customized vaccines with enhanced adjuvants and alternative delivery methods. By addressing the unique challenges faced by immunosuppressed individuals, we may improve vaccine efficacy, reduce the risk of infections, and ultimately enhance the health outcomes. Additionally, clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of temporarily discontinuing immunosuppressants during vaccination in various AIIRDs are crucial.

Reproducibility and rigor in rheumatology research.

The pillars of scientific progress in rheumatology are experimentation and observation, followed by the publication of reliable and credible results. These data must then be independently verified, validated, and replicated. Peer and journal-specific technical and statistical reviews are paramount to improving rigor and reproducibility. In addition, research integrity, ethics, and responsible conduct training can help to reduce research misconduct and improve scientific evidence. As the number of published articles in rheumatology grows, the field has become critical for determining reproducibility. Prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating clinical intervention efficacy and safety in this space. However, their applicability to larger, more representative patient populations with rheumatological disorders worldwide could be limited due to time, technical, and cost constraints involved with large-scale clinical trials. Accordingly, analysis of real-world, patient-centered clinical data retrieved from established healthcare inventories, such as electronic health records, medical billing reports, and disease registries, are increasingly used to report patient outcomes. Unfortunately, it is unknown whether this clinical research paradigm in rheumatology could be deployed in medically underserved regions.

Adalimumab in the treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis: Single center case series and narrative literature review.

Background: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors have been used in the treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis, infliximab being the most commonly used. We have previously reported a case of effective treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis using adalimumab. Objective: To describe our experience of using adalimumab in the treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate patients with cardiac sarcoidosis who received adalimumab treatment at the University of Illinois Health between 2011 and 2022. The outcome was evaluated by assessing safety, tolerability, and ability to taper systemic corticosteroids therapy following initiation of adalimumab. Results: Seven patients met the inclusion criteria. Clinical responses to adalimumab were universally positive. Corticosteroid therapy was discontinued in five patients and the dose was reduced in two patients. Furthermore, adalimumab was well tolerated, and no adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Adalimumab was safe and well-tolerated in seven patients with cardiac sarcoidosis seen at our medical center and exhibited corticosteroid-sparing effects. Our observation further warrants large prospective studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adalimumab in the treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis.