Disruptions in Rheumatology Care and the Rise of Telehealth in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Community Practice-Based Network.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on community-based rheumatology care and the use of telehealth is unclear. We undertook this study to investigate the impact of the pandemic on rheumatology care delivery in a large community practice-based network. METHODS: Using a community practice-based rheumatologist network, we examined trends in in-person versus telehealth visits versus canceled visits in 3 time periods: pre-COVID-19, COVID-19 transition (6 weeks beginning March 23, 2020), and post-COVID-19 transition (May-August). In the transition period, we compared patients who received in-person care versus telehealth visits versus those who cancelled all visits. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with canceled or telehealth visits. RESULTS: Pre-COVID-19, there were 7,075 visits/week among 60,002 unique rheumatology patients cared for by ~300 providers practicing in 92 offices. This number decreased substantially (24.6% reduction) during the COVID-19 transition period for in-person visits but rebounded to pre-COVID-19 levels during the post-COVID-19 transition. There were almost no telehealth visits pre-COVID-19, but telehealth increased substantially during the COVID-19 transition (41.4% of all follow-up visits) and slightly decreased during the post-COVID-19 transition (27.7% of visits). Older age, female sex, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, lower socioeconomic status, and rural residence were associated with a greater likelihood of canceling visits. Most factors were also associated with a lower likelihood of having telehealth versus in-office visits. Patients living further from the rheumatologists' office were more likely to use telehealth. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 led to large disruptions in rheumatology care; these disruptions were only partially offset by increases in telehealth use and disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities and patients with lower socioeconomic status. During the COVID-19 era, telehealth continues to be an important part of rheumatology practice, but disparities in access to care exist for some vulnerable groups.

Randomised prospective trial to assess the clinical utility of multianalyte assay panel with complement activation products for the diagnosis of SLE.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the physician-assessed diagnostic likelihood of SLE resulting from standard diagnosis laboratory testing (SDLT) to that resulting from multianalyte assay panel (MAP) with cell-bound complement activation products (MAP/CB-CAPs), which reports a two-tiered index test result having 80% sensitivity and 86% specificity for SLE. METHODS: Patients (n=145) with a history of positive antinuclear antibody status were evaluated clinically by rheumatologists and randomised to SDLT arm (tests ordered at the discretion of the rheumatologists) or to MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm. The primary endpoint was based on the change in the physician likelihood of SLE on a five-point Likert scale collected before and after testing. Changes in pharmacological treatment based on laboratory results were assessed in both arms. Statistical analysis consisted of Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: At enrolment, patients randomised to SDLT (n=73, age=48±2 years, 94% females) and MAP/CB-CAPs testing arms (n=72, 50±2 years, 93% females) presented with similar pretest likelihood of SLE (1.42±0.06 vs 1.46±0.06 points, respectively; p=0.68). Post-test likelihood of SLE resulting from randomisation in the MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm was significantly lower than that resulting from randomisation to SDLT arm on review of test results (-0.44±0.10 points vs -0.19±0.07 points) and at the 12-week follow-up visit (-0.61±0.10 points vs -0.31±0.10 points) (p<0.05). Among patients randomised to the MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm, two-tiered positive test results associated significantly with initiation of prednisone (p=0.034). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that MAP/CB-CAPs testing has clinical utility in facilitating SLE diagnosis and treatment decisions.

Apremilast in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Phase II, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy/safety of apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, compared with placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice a day, or apremilast 30 mg twice a day. Patients whose swollen and tender joint counts had not improved by ≥20% were considered nonresponders at week 16 and were required to enter the protocol-defined early escape. At week 24, patients were transitioned in a blinded manner to receive apremilast 20 mg twice a day if they were initially randomized to receive placebo. Patients who were not initially randomized to receive placebo continued to receive their target apremilast dose. Patients were required to take a stable dose of MTX (7.5-25 mg/week) throughout the study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in a subset of patients. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients who were receiving MTX therapy were randomized and received ≥1 dose of study medication. At week 16, similar proportions of patients receiving placebo (35%), apremilast 20 mg twice a day (28%), and apremilast 30 mg twice a day (34%) met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement in disease activity (the primary efficacy end point). In the MRI substudy, mean change from baseline in total joint damage scores according to the Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring system was generally similar with either apremilast dose at week 16. At week 52, no trends were noted for clinical end points by treatment group. Both apremilast doses were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Apremilast efficacy was not demonstrated in patients who had active RA despite stable MTX therapy.