Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic: health care disturbances and telemedicine as an alternative rheumatology practice in Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects health care services. Our aim was to assess health care disruptions, treatment interruptions, and telemedicine reception regarding autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) in Indonesia. METHOD: A cross-sectional population online-based questionnaire was conducted in Indonesia from September to December 2021. RESULTS: A total of 311 ARD patients were included, of whom 81 (26.0%) underwent consultations via telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents showed increased concern about their susceptibility to COVID-19 (score of 3.9/5). Approximately 81 (26.0%) avoided hospital visits, and 76 (24.4%) stopped taking the medication without medical advice. Respondents' concerns correlated with their social distancing behaviors (p value 0.000, r 0.458). Respondent concerns, behaviors, and blocked access to the hospital during the pandemic were associated with avoiding hospital visits (p value 0.014; 0.001; 0.045; 0.008). Sex was associated with stopping medication (p value 0.005). In multivariate analysis, blocked access and sex remained significant. Approximately 81 (26%) respondents who used telemedicine services during the COVID-19 pandemic as an alternative medical consultation method showed high satisfaction (3.8/5). CONCLUSION: Health care disruptions and treatment interruptions were affected by patients' internal and external factors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine may be the best option to address barriers to health care access in Indonesia's rheumatology practice during and after the pandemic situation.

Direct comparison of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world evidences.

BACKGROUND: To overcome the several drawbacks of warfarin, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were developed. Even though randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provided high-quality evidence, the real-world evidence is still needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis proposed to measure the safety and efficacy profile between warfarin and NOACs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in preventing stroke. RESULTS: We collected articles about the real-world studies comparing warfarin and NOACs for NVAF patients recorded in electronic scientific databases such as Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, and Cochrane. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the generic inverse variance method. A total of 34 real-world studies, including 2287288 NVAF patients, were involved in this study. NOACs effectively reduced the stroke risk than warfarin (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; p < 0.01). Moreover, NOACs effectively lowered all-cause mortality risk (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81; p < 0.01). From the safety aspect, compared to warfarin, NOACs significantly reduced major bleeding risk (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86; p < 0.01) and intracranial bleeding risk (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; p < 0.01). However, NOACs administration failed to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding risk (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06; p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: In NVAF patients, NOACs were found to be more effective than warfarin at reducing stroke risk. NOACSs also lowered the risk of all-cause mortality, cerebral hemorrhage, and severe bleeding in NVAF patients compared to warfarin.