Summarizing Evidence of Associations of COVID-19 With a Future Diagnosis of Inflammatory Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: A Rapid Review.

OBJECTIVE: Musculoskeletal symptoms are commonly reported following acute COVID-19. It is unclear whether those with musculoskeletal symptoms subsequently develop inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal disease (iRMD). This review seeks to identify evidence for an association between acute COVID-19 and subsequent iRMD diagnosis. METHODS: A rapid review of the literature using a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and two COVID-19 databases was undertaken until August 2022. Case studies, case series, cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies reporting patients with an incident iRMD following COVID-19 were included. Title and abstract screening were conducted by one reviewer and full text screening by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were by one reviewer, with a second verifying. Study-type specific critical appraisal tools were used. RESULTS: Results were narratively synthesized. A total of 80 studies were included (69 case reports, 10 case series and 1 cross-sectional study). Commonly reported iRMDs were "reactive arthropathies" (n = 47), "inflammatory arthropathies unspecified" (n = 18), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 12) and systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 11). The cross-sectional study reported 37% of those with COVID-19 developed "post COVID arthritis." Time from diagnosis of COVID-19 to iRMD presentation ranged from 0 to 120 days. Several mechanisms were proposed to explain the association between COVID-19 and iRMD development: autoimmune processes, aberrant inflammatory responses, colonization of joint spaces, direct damage from the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus and genetic predisposition. CONCLUSION: The level of evidence of the studies included in this review was low and the quality generally poor. Prospective observational studies are required to confirm associations and likely impact of post COVID-19 iRMDs at a population level.

Trends in consultations and prescribing for rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: an electronic primary care records study.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are common and generally managed in primary care through supported self-care, physiotherapy, analgesia, and specialist referral where indicated. The COVID-19 pandemic led to abrupt changes in primary care delivery, including moves to remote consulting, pauses on group-based self-care, and restricted referrals. AIM: To describe how patterns of UK primary healthcare consultations and analgesic prescribing relating to RMDs changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study using routinely collected national primary care electronic health record data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 April 2017 and 1 October 2021. METHOD: RMD and analgesic SNOMED-CT codes were derived through consensus and published work. Prevalent and incident RMD-related consultations were determined, and RMD consultations matched to prevalent and incident analgesia prescriptions. Joinpoint regression was used to describe trends over time. RESULTS: Prevalent and incident RMD consultations steadily increased until March 2020 when a substantial drop occurred as pandemic- related restrictions were introduced; levels had not recovered to pre-pandemic highs by October 2021. While incident and prevalent analgesic prescribing also reduced around March 2020, the proportion of patients with an RMD consultation prescribed any analgesic increased from 27.72% in February 2020 to 38.15% in April 2020, with increases across all analgesic groups. A higher proportion of strong opioid prescriptions was seen in the most deprived areas. CONCLUSION: Pandemic-associated restrictions led to fewer primary care consultations and relative increases in analgesic prescribing, including strong opioids, for RMDs in the UK. Policymakers must consider the impact of these changes in future healthcare resource planning.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on referrals to musculoskeletal services from primary care and subsequent incidence of inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal disease: an observational study.

Objective: The aim was to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon referral patterns and incident diagnosis of inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs). Methods: UK primary care data were used to describe referral patterns for patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Trends in referrals to musculoskeletal services and incident diagnoses of iRMDs (specifically, RA and JIA) were described using Joinpoint Regression and comparisons made between key pandemic time periods. Results: The incidence of RA and JIA reduced by -13.3 and -17.4% per month, respectively, between January 2020 and April 2020, then increased by 1.9 and 3.7% per month, respectively, between April 2020 and October 2021. The incidence of all diagnosed iRMDs was stable until October 2021. Referrals decreased between February 2020 and May 2020 by -16.8% per month from 4.8 to 2.4% in patients presenting with a musculoskeletal condition. After May 2020, referrals increased significantly (16.8% per month) to 4.5% in July 2020. The time from first musculoskeletal consultation to RA diagnosis and from referral to RA diagnosis increased in the early pandemic period [rate ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 1.07, 1.15 and RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17, 1.30, respectively] and remained consistently higher in the late pandemic period (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11, 1.16 and RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.23, 1.32, respectively), compared with the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period. Conclusion: Patients with underlying RA and JIA that developed during the pandemic might be yet to present or might be in the referral and/or diagnostic process. Clinicians should remain alert to this possibility, and commissioners should be aware of these findings, enabling the appropriate planning and commissioning of services.

Investigating multisite pain as a predictor of self-reported falls and falls requiring health care use in an older population: A prospective cohort study.

Older people are continuing to fall despite fall prevention guidelines targeting known falls' risk factors. Multisite pain is a potential novel falls' risk factor requiring further exploration. This study hypothesises that: (1) an increasing number of pain sites and widespread pain predicts self-reported falls and falls recorded in primary and secondary healthcare records; (2) those relationships are independent of known falls' risk factors and putative confounders. This prospective cohort study linked data from self-completed questionnaires, primary care electronic health records, secondary care admission statistics and national mortality data. Between 2002-2005, self-completion questionnaires were mailed to community-dwelling individuals aged 50 years and older registered with one of eight general practices in North Staffordshire, UK(n = 26,129) yielding 18,497 respondents. 11,375 respondents entered the study; 4386 completed six year follow-up. Self-reported falls were extracted from three and six year follow-up questionnaires. Falls requiring healthcare were extracted from routinely collected primary and secondary healthcare data. Increasing number of pain sites increased odds of future 3 year (odds ratio 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.24)) and 6 year self-reported fall (odds ratio 1.02 (1.00-1.03)) and increased hazard of future fall requiring primary healthcare (hazard ratio 1.01 (1.00-1.03)). The presence of widespread pain increased odds of future 3 year (odds ratio 1.27 (0.92-1.75)) and 6 year fall (odds ratio 1.43(1.06-1.95)) and increased hazard of future fall requiring primary healthcare (hazard ratio 1.27(0.98-1.65)). Multisite pain was not associated with future fall requiring secondary care admission. Multisite pain must be included as a falls' risk factor in guidelines to ensure clinicians identify their older patients at risk of falls and employ timely implementation of current falls prevention strategies.

Multisite pain and self-reported falls in older people: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multisite pain and falls are common in older people, and isolated studies have identified multisite pain as a potential falls risk factor. This study aims to synthesise published literature to further explore the relationship between multisite pain and falls and to quantify associated risks. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to December 2017. Studies of community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and older with a multisite pain measurement and a falls outcome were included. Two reviewers screened articles, undertook quality assessment and extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the effect estimate (odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI)). Heterogeneity was assessed by I2; sensitivity analyses used adjusted risk estimates and exclusively longitudinal studies. RESULTS: The search identified 49,577 articles, 3145 underwent abstract review, 22 articles were included in the systematic review and 18 were included in the meta-analysis. The unadjusted pooled OR of 1.82 (95%CI 1.55-2.13), demonstrating that those reporting multisite pain are at increased risk of falls, is supported by the adjusted pooled OR of 1.56 (95%CI 1.39-1.74). Multisite pain predicts future falls risk (OR = 1.74 (95%CI 1.57-1.93)). For high-quality studies, those reporting multisite pain have double the odds of a future fall compared to their pain-free counterparts. CONCLUSION: Multisite pain is associated with an increased future falls risk in community-dwelling older people. Increasing public awareness of multisite pain as a falls risk factor and advising health and social care professionals to identify older people with multisite pain to signpost accordingly will enable timely falls prevention strategies to be implemented.

Extending the authority for sickness certification beyond the medical profession: the importance of 'boundary work'.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to explore the views of general practitioners (GPs), nurses and physiotherapists towards extending the role of sickness certification beyond the medical profession in primary care. METHODS: Fifteen GPs, seven nurses and six physiotherapists were selected to achieve varied respondent characteristics including sex, geographical location, service duration and post-graduate specialist training. Constant-comparative qualitative analysis of data from 28 semi-structured telephone interviews was undertaken. RESULTS: The majority of respondents supported the extended role concept; however members of each professional group also rejected the notion. Respondents employed four different legitimacy claims to justify their views and define their occupational boundaries in relation to sickness certification practice. Condition-specific legitimacy, the ability to adopt a holistic approach to sickness certification, system efficiency and control-related arguments were used to different degrees by each occupation. Practical suggestions for the extension of the sickness certification role beyond the medical profession are underpinned by the sociological theory of professional identity. CONCLUSIONS: Extending the authority to certify sickness absence beyond the medical profession is not simply a matter of addressing practical and organisational obstacles. There is also a need to consider the impact on, and preferences of, the specific occupations and their respective boundary claims. This paper explores the implications of extending the sick certification role beyond general practice. We conclude that the main policy challenge of such a move is to a) persuade GPs to relinquish this role (or to share it with other professions), and b) to understand the 'boundary work' involved.

Exploration of GPs' views and use of the fit note: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Sickness certification constitutes daily clinical practice for GPs. In April 2010, the UK sickness certification system changed to reflect the evidence that work is generally good for health and a new Statement of Fitness for Work - the 'fit note' - was introduced. Sickness certification is a contentious topic among GPs and the proposed fit note generated mixed reviews. AIM: To explore GPs' views and use of the fit note during its first year of operation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study of GPs based in different geographical locations across the UK. METHOD: GPs (n = 15), who were recruited from a national sample, participated in semi-structured telephone interviews which were subject to constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Overall, the fit note was well received. GPs recognised that work is generally good for health and felt the fit note facilitated using an earlier return to work as a negotiation tool. GPs perceive employers as the major obstacle to early return to work. There were reports of scepticism towards the system that negatively impacted on some GPs' operation of sickness certification. Feedback over the fit note's impact on employer behaviour and the return of a mechanism that enables GPs to request early independent assessments would be welcomed. CONCLUSION: A revised approach is needed to address the scepticism towards the sickness certification system that persists among some GPs. New strategies need to be designed to engage employers in facilitating an early return to work and to enable the objectives of the medical statement reforms to be achieved.