Home-Based Telemedicine in Rheumatology-A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a scoping review of the relevant literature on home-based telehealth in rheumatology to understand its appropriate application in rheumatology practice. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and scientific meeting abstracts to identify articles that specifically addressed telehealth suitability, barriers to telehealth, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected in telehealth settings, and telehealth satisfaction. From the initial search of 4,882 studies, 23 reports were included. In addition, 10 abstracts were also eligible for analysis, resulting in a total of 33 articles: 2 randomized clinical trials, 9 prospective cohort studies, and 22 retrospective studies. RESULTS: We found that triage appointments or predictive models could be helpful in selecting patients for telehealth and that telehealth interventions were appropriate for follow-up of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and inflammatory arthritis, but that conducting new patient visits over telehealth was not ideal. Barriers to telehealth include patient factors (age, technology access) and need for physician/process factors (eg, physical examinations). PROs collected in regular practice can be incorporated into telehealth. Several small, single-center studies suggest that telehealth does not lead to negative outcomes compared with in-person visits, and overall, patients report high patient satisfaction with telehealth. In several scenarios, home-based telehealth was equivalent to in-person visits with regard to patient outcomes and satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The widespread potential of telehealth to manage and deliver care for people with rheumatic disease is significant. As such, further research in the form of randomized controlled trials can help contribute to growing evidence that shapes telehealth implementation for patients with rheumatic diseases.

Methodological challenges in systematic reviews of mHealth interventions: Survey and consensus-based recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: Mobile Health (mHealth) refers to using mobile devices to support health. This study aimed to identify specific methodological challenges in systematic reviews (SRs) of mHealth interventions and to develop guidance for addressing selected challenges. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two-phase participatory research project. First, we sent an online survey to corresponding authors of SRs of mHealth interventions. On a five-category scale, survey respondents rated how challenging they found 24 methodological aspects in SRs of mHealth interventions compared to non-mHealth intervention SRs. Second, a subset of survey respondents participated in an online workshop to discuss recommendations to address the most challenging methodological aspects identified in the survey. Finally, consensus-based recommendations were developed based on the workshop discussion and subsequent interaction via email with the workshop participants and two external mHealth SR authors. RESULTS: We contacted 953 corresponding authors of mHealth intervention SRs, of whom 50 (5 %) completed the survey. All the respondents identified at least one methodological aspect as more or much more challenging in mHealth intervention SRs than in non-mHealth SRs. A median of 11 (IQR 7.25-15) out of 24 aspects (46 %) were rated as more or much more challenging. Those most frequently reported were: defining intervention intensity and components (85 %), extracting mHealth intervention details (71 %), dealing with dynamic research with evolving interventions (70 %), assessing intervention integrity (69 %), defining the intervention (66 %) and maintaining an updated review (65 %). Eleven survey respondents participated in the workshop (five had authored more than three mHealth SRs). Eighteen consensus-based recommendations were developed to address issues related to mHealth intervention integrity and to keep mHealth SRs up to date. CONCLUSION: mHealth SRs present specific methodological challenges compared to non-mHealth interventions, particularly related to intervention integrity and keeping SRs current. Our recommendations for addressing these challenges can improve mHealth SRs.

Global Perspective on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Rheumatology and Health Equity.

Although the public health emergency associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has ended, challenges remain, especially for individuals with rheumatic diseases. We aimed to assess the historical and ongoing effects of COVID-19 on individuals with rheumatic diseases and rheumatology practices globally, with specific attention to vulnerable communities and lessons learned. We reviewed literature from several countries and regions, including Africa, Australia and New Zealand, China, Europe, Latin America, and the US. In this review, we summarize literature that not only examines the impact of the pandemic on individuals with rheumatic diseases, but also research that reports the lasting changes to rheumatology patient care and practice, and health service use. Across countries, challenges faced by individuals with rheumatic diseases during the pandemic included disruptions in health care and medication supply shortages. These challenges were associated with worse disease and mental health outcomes in some studies, particularly among those who had social vulnerabilities defined by socioeconomic, race, or rurality. Moreover, rheumatology practice was impacted in all regions, with the uptake of telemedicine and changes in health care utilization. While many regions developed rapid guidelines to disseminate scientific information, misinformation and disinformation remained widespread. Finally, vaccine uptake among individuals with rheumatic diseases has been uneven across the world. As the acute phase of the pandemic wanes, ongoing efforts are needed to improve health care access, stabilize rheumatology drug supplies, improve public health communication, and implement evidence-based vaccination practices to reduce COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among individuals with rheumatic diseases.

Learning technology in health professions education: Realising an (un)imagined future.

CONTEXT: Technology is being introduced, used and studied in almost all areas of health professions education (HPE), often with a claim of making HPE better in one way or another. However, it remains unclear if technology has driven real change in HPE. In this article, we seek to develop an understanding of the transformative capacity of learning technology in HPE. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We first consider the wider scholarship highlighting the intersection between technology and pedagogy, articulating what is meant by transformation and the role of learning technology in driving educational transformation. We then undertake a synthesis of the current high visibility HPE-focused research. We sampled the literature in two ways-for the five highest impact factor health professional education journals over the past decade and for all PubMed indexed journals for the last 3 years-and categorised the extant research against the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition model. We found that the majority of research we sampled focussed on substituting or augmenting learning through technology, with relatively few studies using technology to modify or redefine what HPE is through the use of technology. Of more concern was the lack of theoretical justification for pedagogical improvement, including transformation, underpinning the majority of studies. CONCLUSIONS: While all kinds of technology use in learning have their place, the next step for HPE is the robust use of technology aiming to lead transformation. This should be guided by transformational educational theory and aligned with pedagogical context. We challenge HPE practitioners and scholars to work thoughtfully and with intent to enable transformation in education for future health professionals.

Patient perspectives on telemedicine use in rheumatology during the COVID-19 pandemic: survey results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid adoption of telemedicine in rheumatology. We described perspectives of patients with rheumatic diseases related to telemedicine use. METHODS: An anonymous online survey for people with rheumatic diseases was launched in January 2021. We collected data on reasons for telemedicine use, perceived benefits, disadvantages and obstacles of telemedicine, perceived telemedicine effectiveness for different clinical tasks, level of satisfaction with telemedicine use, and future preferences for telemedicine. We summarized results with descriptive statistics and identified themes in free text responses to describe perspectives of telemedicine qualitatively. RESULTS: We received 596 complete responses (85% female and 47% 41-60 years old). During the COVID-19 pandemic, 78% (467/596) of respondents used telemedicine, and 61% (283/467) of telemedicine users reported that telemedicine was as effective or more effective than an in-person visit. Younger participants and those in North America reported effectiveness and satisfaction with telemedicine at higher frequencies. Participants reported similar effectiveness to in-person visits for making medication changes and discussing disease symptoms or complications. CONCLUSION: Most respondents found telemedicine at least as effective as in-person visits. Participants found telemedicine to be effective for specific scenarios, such as making medication changes and discussion of disease activity. Telemedicine may continue to be of importance in the care of patients with rheumatic diseases post pandemic, but likely for specific subsets of patients for specific visit indications. Key Points • Most patients with rheumatic disease found telemedicine as effective as in-person visits, particularly for some indications.

Can storytelling of women's lived experience enhance empathy in medical students? A pilot intervention study.

PURPOSE: This pilot study aimed to investigate the acceptability and efficacy of a patient storytelling intervention (live and recorded) on empathy levels of medical students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical students participated in a storytelling intervention that had three components: listening to live or recorded stories from women with abnormal uterine bleeding, reflective writing, and a debriefing session. Empathy scores of students pre- and post-intervention were measured using the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-student version (JSE-S). Students also completed a feedback survey. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse quantitative data and content analysis was used for text comments. RESULTS: Both live and recorded storytelling interventions had positive effects on student's empathy scores post intervention. Overall, students were satisfied with the intervention and reported that it improved their understanding of life experiences of women. Suggestions were made for an in-person storytelling session and interactive discussion after listening to each story. CONCLUSION: A storytelling intervention has the potential to improve medical students' empathy and understanding of lived experience of women with health conditions. This could be valuable when student-patient interactions are limited in healthcare settings, or to enable stories of small numbers of patient volunteers to reach students.

Impact of Risk Factors on COVID-19 Outcomes in Unvaccinated People With Rheumatic Diseases: A Comparative Analysis of Pandemic Epochs Using the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately one third of individuals worldwide have not received a COVID-19 vaccine. Although studies have investigated risk factors linked to severe COVID-19 among unvaccinated people with rheumatic diseases (RDs), we know less about whether these factors changed as the pandemic progressed. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 in unvaccinated individuals in different pandemic epochs corresponding to major variants of concern. METHODS: Patients with RDs and COVID-19 were entered into the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry between March 2020 and June 2022. An ordinal logistic regression model (not hospitalized, hospitalized, and death) was used with date of COVID-19 diagnosis, age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, comorbidities, RD activity, medications, and the human development index (HDI) as covariates. The main analysis included all unvaccinated patients across COVID-19 pandemic epochs; subanalyses stratified patients according to RD types. RESULTS: Among 19,256 unvaccinated people with RDs and COVID-19, those who were older, male, had more comorbidities, used glucocorticoids, had higher disease activity, or lived in lower HDI regions had worse outcomes across epochs. For those with rheumatoid arthritis, sulfasalazine and B-cell-depleting therapy were associated with worse outcomes, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were associated with improved outcomes. In those with connective tissue disease or vasculitis, B-cell-depleting therapy was associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes were similar throughout pandemic epochs in unvaccinated people with RDs. Ongoing efforts, including vaccination, are needed to reduce COVID-19 severity in this population, particularly in those with medical and social vulnerabilities identified in this study.

Omicron variant infection in inflammatory rheumatological conditions - outcomes from a COVID-19 naive population in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Background: Due to geographic isolation and border controls Aotearoa New Zealand (AoNZ) attained high levels of population coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccination before widespread transmission of COVID-19. We describe outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Omicron variant) in people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases in this unique setting. Methods: This observational study included people with inflammatory rheumatic disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection in AoNZ between 1 February and 30 April 2022. Data were collected via the Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry including demographic and rheumatic disease characteristics, and COVID-19 vaccination status and outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore associations of demographic and clinical factors with COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. Findings: Of the 1599 cases included, 96% were from three hospitals that systematically identified people with inflammatory rheumatic disease and COVID-19. At time of COVID-19, 1513 cases (94.6%) had received at least two COVID-19 vaccinations. Hospitalisation occurred for 104 (6.5%) cases and 10 (0.6%) patients died. Lower frequency of hospitalisation was seen in cases who had received at least two vaccinations (5.9%), compared to the unvaccinated (20.6%) or those with a single vaccine dose (10.7%). In multivariable adjusted models, people with gout or connective tissue diseases (CTD) had increased risk of the combined outcome of hospitalisation/death, compared to people with inflammatory arthritis. Glucocorticoid and rituximab use were associated with increased rates of hospitalisation/death. All patients who died had three or more co-morbidities or were over 60 years old. Interpretation: In this cohort with inflammatory rheumatic diseases and high vaccination rates, severe outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant were relatively infrequent. The outcome of Omicron variant infection among vaccinated but SARS-CoV-2 infection-naive people with inflammatory rheumatic disease without other known risk factors were favourable. Funding: Financial support from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) included management of COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance funds.

What are the core recommendations for gout management in first line and specialist care? Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis, increasing in prevalence and burden. Of the rheumatic diseases, gout is the best-understood and potentially most manageable condition. However, it frequently remains untreated or poorly managed. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) regarding gout management, evaluate their quality, and to provide a synthesis of consistent recommendations in the high-quality CPGs. METHODS: Gout management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were (1) written in English and published between January 2015-February 2022; focused on adults aged ≥ 18 years of age; and met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and (2) were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Gout CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organisation of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. OvidSP MEDLINE, Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and four online guideline repositories were searched. RESULTS: Six CPGs were appraised as high quality and included in the synthesis. Clinical practice guidelines consistently recommended education, commencement of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, colchicine or corticosteroids (unless contraindicated), and assessment of cardiovascular risk factors, renal function, and co-morbid conditions for acute gout management. Consistent recommendations for chronic gout management were urate lowering therapy (ULT) and continued prophylaxis recommended based on individual patient characteristics. Clinical practice guideline recommendations were inconsistent on when to initiate ULT and length of ULT, vitamin C intake, and use of pegloticase, fenofibrate and losartan. CONCLUSION: Management of acute gout was consistent across CPGs. Management of chronic gout was mostly consistent although there were inconsistent recommendations regarding ULT and other pharmacological therapies. This synthesis provides clear guidance that can assist health professionals to provide standardised, evidence-based gout care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework (DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).

What are the core recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis care? Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).

Reducing the burden of knee osteoarthritis through community pharmacy: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the Knee Care for Arthritis through Pharmacy Service.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) negatively impacts the health outcomes and equity, social and employment participation, and socio-economic wellbeing of those affected. Little community-based support is offered to people with knee OA in Aotearoa New Zealand. Identifying Maori and non-Maori with knee OA in community pharmacy and providing co-ordinated, evidence- and community-based care may be a scalable, sustainable, equitable, effective and cost-effective approach to improve health and wellbeing. AIM: Assess whether the Knee Care for Arthritis through Pharmacy Service (KneeCAPS) intervention improves knee-related physical function and pain (co-primary outcomes). Secondary aims assess impacts on health-related quality of life, employment participation, medication use, secondary health care utilisation, and relative effectiveness for Maori. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial will compare the KneeCAPS intervention to the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand Arthritis Fact Sheet and usual care (active control) at 12 months for Maori and non-Maori who have knee OA. Participants will be recruited in community pharmacies. Knee-related physical function will be measured using the function subscale of the Short Form of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Knee-related pain will be measured using an 11-point numeric pain rating scale. Primary outcome analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed models. Parallel within-trial health economic analysis and process evaluation will also be conducted. ETHICS AND TRIAL DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Central Health and Ethics Committee (2022-EXP-11725). The trial is registered with ANZCTR (ACTRN12622000469718). Findings will be submitted for publication and shared with participants.

Exploring the current and future osteoarthritis health service delivery needs in Aotearoa New Zealand.

AIM: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects the wellbeing of one in 10 people in Aotearoa New Zealand, yet current healthcare delivery for these people is fragmented, un-coordinated and inconsistent. How current and future needs should be addressed has not been systematically explored. This study aimed to describe the views of interested people from the health sector regarding current and future OA health service delivery in the public health system in Aotearoa New Zealand. METHOD: Data were collected via a co-design approach within an interprofessional workshop at the Taupuni Hao Huatau Kaikoiwi: Osteoarthritis Aotearoa New Zealand Basecamp symposium and analysed using direct qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The results highlighted several promising current healthcare delivery initiatives. Health literacy and obesity prevention policies featured in the thematic analysis suggesting a lifespan or systemwide approach is needed. Data highlighted a need for reformed systems that enhances hauora/wellbeing, promotes physical activity, facilitates interprofessional service delivery and collaborates across care settings. CONCLUSION: Participants identified several promising healthcare delivery initiatives for people with OA in Aotearoa New Zealand. Public health policy initiatives are needed to reduce osteoarthritis risk factors. Developing future care pathways should support the diverse needs within Aotearoa New Zealand, coordinate and stratify care, value interprofessional collaboration and practice, and improve health literacy and self-management.

Outcome reporting in randomized trials in gout: A systematic scoping review from the OMERACT gout working group assessing the uptake of the core outcome set.

OBJECTIVE: The selection and reporting of core outcome measures in clinical trials is essential for patients, researchers, and healthcare providers for clinical research to have an impact on healthcare. In this systematic scoping review, we aimed to quantify the extent to which gout clinical trials are collecting and reporting data in accordance with the core outcome domains from Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) published in 2009 applicable for both acute and chronic trials and evaluate the reporting according to the core domains before and after the 2009 OMERACT endorsement. METHODS: We searched multiple databases PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allocating people with gout versus an active pharmacological gout treatment or a control comparator (no date limitation). We extracted the data in accordance with the core outcome sets, focusing individually on core outcome domains and the core outcome measurements for acute and chronic trials, respectively. In this study 'Acute trials' reflect studies that describe interventions for short term management of gout flares, and 'chronic trials' describe interventions for long-term urate lowering therapy in the management of gout. RESULTS: From 8,522 records identified in the database search, 134 full text papers were reviewed, and 71 trials were included, of which 36 were acute and 35 were chronic. Only 3 of 36 (8%) acute trials reported all five core domains and none of the 35 included chronic trials reported all 7 core domains. In the acute trials, twenty-seven unique measurement instruments across the 5 core domains were identified. For chronic trials there were 31 unique measurement instruments used across the 7 core domains. Serum urate was reported in 100% of the chronic trials and gout flares in 80%. However, other core domains were reported in <30% of chronic trials. In particular the patient-important domains such as HR-QOL, patient global assessment and activity limitations were rarely reported. A broad variety of different measurement instruments were used to assess each endorsed core domain, a minority of trials used the OMERACT endorsed instruments. For acute trials, the number reporting on all core domains was consistently low and no change was detected before and after the endorsement of the core domains in 2009. None of the included chronic trials reported on all 7 endorsed core domains at any time. CONCLUSION: In this study we found a low adherence with the intended endorsed (i.e., core) outcome domains for acute and chronic gout studies which represents a poor uptake of the global OMERACT efforts for the minimum of what should be measured in clinical trials. In addition, there is a significant variation in how the OMERACT endorsed outcome domains have been measured. This systematic review demonstrates the need for continuous encouragement among gout researchers to adhere to OMERACT core domains as well as further guidance on outcome measurements reporting. REGISTRATION: Prospero: CRD42019151316.

Defining and Scoping Participatory Health Informatics: An eDelphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care has evolved to support the involvement of individuals in decision making by, for example, using mobile apps and wearables that may help empower people to actively participate in their treatment and health monitoring. While the term "participatory health informatics" (PHI) has emerged in literature to describe these activities, along with the use of social media for health purposes, the scope of the research field of PHI is not yet well defined. OBJECTIVE: This article proposes a preliminary definition of PHI and defines the scope of the field. METHODS: We used an adapted Delphi study design to gain consensus from participants on a definition developed from a previous review of literature. From the literature we derived a set of attributes describing PHI as comprising 18 characteristics, 14 aims, and 4 relations. We invited researchers, health professionals, and health informaticians to score these characteristics and aims of PHI and their relations to other fields over three survey rounds. In the first round participants were able to offer additional attributes for voting. RESULTS: The first round had 44 participants, with 28 participants participating in all three rounds. These 28 participants were gender-balanced and comprised participants from industry, academia, and health sectors from all continents. Consensus was reached on 16 characteristics, 9 aims, and 6 related fields. DISCUSSION: The consensus reached on attributes of PHI describe PHI as a multidisciplinary field that uses information technology and delivers tools with a focus on individual-centered care. It studies various effects of the use of such tools and technology. Its aims address the individuals in the role of patients, but also the health of a society as a whole. There are relationships to the fields of health informatics, digital health, medical informatics, and consumer health informatics. CONCLUSION: We have proposed a preliminary definition, aims, and relationships of PHI based on literature and expert consensus. These can begin to be used to support development of research priorities and outcomes measurements.

Characteristics associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in people with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: data from the COVID-19 PsoProtect and Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registries.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate factors associated with severe COVID-19 in people with psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Demographic data, clinical characteristics and COVID-19 outcome severity of adults with PsO, PsA and axSpA were obtained from two international physician-reported registries. A three-point ordinal COVID-19 severity scale was defined: no hospitalisation, hospitalisation (and no death) and death. ORs were estimated using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 5045 cases, 18.3% had PsO, 45.5% PsA and 36.3% axSpA. Most (83.6%) were not hospitalised, 14.6% were hospitalised and 1.8% died. Older age was non-linearly associated with COVID-19 severity. Male sex (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.83), cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, metabolic and cancer comorbidities (ORs 1.25-2.89), moderate/high disease activity and/or glucocorticoid use (ORs 1.39-2.23, vs remission/low disease activity and no glucocorticoids) were associated with increased odds of severe COVID-19. Later pandemic time periods (ORs 0.42-0.52, vs until 15 June 2020), PsO (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.65, vs PsA) and baseline exposure to TNFi, IL17i and IL-23i/IL-12+23i (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.73; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; respectively; vs no disease-modifying antirheumatic drug) were associated with reduced odds of severe COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Older age, male sex, comorbidity burden, higher disease activity and glucocorticoid intake were associated with more severe COVID-19. Later pandemic time periods, PsO and exposure to TNFi, IL17i and IL-23i/IL-12+23i were associated with less severe COVID-19. These findings will enable risk stratification and inform management decisions for patients with PsO, PsA and axSpA during COVID-19 waves or similar future respiratory pandemics.

Patient participation in defining best-practice rheumatology service provision in Aotearoa New Zealand: a qualitative study with service consumers.

BACKGROUND: Aotearoa New Zealand (AoNZ) has no agreed models for rheumatology service provision in government-funded health care. We aimed to describe what people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases who have used rheumatology services view as being important in those services, and map these views to previously collated statements describing best practice components of rheumatology services from international recommendations. If these statements did not capture all service aspects that people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases considered important, we aimed to co-create new statements with our patient-participants. METHODS: We conducted one focus group and an interview with people with inflammatory rheumatic disease who had used a government-funded rheumatology service in the previous 5 years (patient-participants) and analysed data using thematic analysis. The research team mapped subthemes to previously collated best practice recommendations that had been included in a Delphi consensus exercise with rheumatologists in AoNZ and proposed new statements, based on patient-participant data. Patient-participant feedback on thematic analysis and the new statements led to a refining of statements. A patient-partner in the research team informed research design and data analysis. RESULTS: Patient-participants viewed it as highly valuable for rheumatology services to respect and value their experiences as people and patients, and those of their whanau (Maori word for family). They expected rheumatology services to provide the right care, at the right time. Many of the subthemes mapped to the best-practice statements. However, three new principles and three new statements were developed and refined by patient-participants. The three principles addressed valuing individuals, and their whanau (family) and their experiences, and providing a patient-focused health system that supports patient participation in decision-making and self-management, and patient education. New statements related to having a specific rheumatologist and other staff for comprehensive care, having adequate nurse staffing, and active provision of outside services and support. CONCLUSION: It was important to patients that rheumatology services demonstrated that patients and their whanau (family) were valued. The inclusion of people with rheumatic diseases who are users of rheumatology services in service development can provide valuable insights to inform how services should be delivered.

Outcomes of COVID-19 in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease in Ireland over the first 2 years of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Poor COVID-19 outcomes occur with higher frequency in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD). Better understanding of the factors involved is crucial to informing patients and clinicians regarding risk mitigation. AIM: To describe COVID-19 outcomes for people with RMD in Ireland over the first 2 years of the pandemic. METHODS: Data entered into the C19-GRA provider registry from Ireland between 24th March 2020 and 31st March 2022 were analysed. Differences in the likelihood of hospitalisation and mortality according to demographic and clinical variables were investigated. RESULTS: Of 237 cases included, 59.9% were female, 95 (41.3%) were hospitalised, and 22 (9.3%) died. Hospitalisation was more common with increasing age, gout, smoking, long-term glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and specific comorbidities of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, and cancer. Hospitalisation was less frequent in people with inflammatory arthritis and conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use. Hospitalisation had a U-shaped relationship with disease activity, being more common in both high disease activity and remission. Mortality was more common with increasing age, gout, smoking, long-term glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and specific comorbidities of cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and obesity. Inflammatory arthritis was less frequent in those who died. CONCLUSION: Hospitalisation or death were more frequently experienced by RMD patients with increasing age, certain comorbidities including potentially modifiable ones, and certain medications and diagnoses amongst other factors. These are important 'indicators' that can help risk-stratify and inform the management of RMD patients.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the management of patients with RA: a survey of rheumatologists in six European countries.

Objective: We aimed to describe, from the perspective of rheumatologists in Europe, how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted their management of people with RA and the continuing medical education of physicians. Methods: Rheumatologists participating in the Adelphi RA Disease Specific ProgrammeTM in six European countries were contacted in August and September 2020 for a telephone survey. Rheumatologists were asked seven attitudinal questions on changes to patient management, prescription behaviour and continuing education owing to COVID-19. Results were summarized with descriptive statistics. Results: The telephone survey was completed by 284 rheumatologists. The most commonly reported changes to patient management were increased utilization of video/telephone consultations (66.5% of respondents), fewer visits (58.5%) and limiting physical contact (58.1%). Furthermore, 67.9% of rheumatologists who indicated that prescribing behaviour had changed switched their patients to self-administered medication, and 60.7% reported not starting patients on targeted synthetic DMARDs, biologic originator DMARDs or biosimilar DMARDs. In total, 57.6% of rheumatologists believed that changes in management would persist. Rheumatologists reported that 38.0% of patients expressed concerns about how COVID-19 would impact treatment, including access to treatment and the risk of infection. The biggest impact on rheumatologist education was a switch to online training and conferences. Conclusion: All countries saw changes in patient management and prescribing behaviour, including the rapid uptake of telemedicine. It is important that the international rheumatology community learns from these experiences to prepare better for future pandemics and to address ongoing rheumatologist shortages.

An international survey of current management practices for polymyalgia rheumatica by general practitioners and rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVES: To explore current management practices for PMR by general practitioners (GPs) and rheumatologists including implications for clinical trial recruitment. METHODS: An English language questionnaire was constructed by a working group of rheumatologists and GPs from six countries. The questionnaire focused on: 1: Respondent characteristics; 2: Referral practices; 3: Treatment with glucocorticoids; 4: Diagnostics; 5: Comorbidities; and 6: Barriers to research. The questionnaire was distributed to rheumatologists and GPs worldwide via members of the International PMR/Giant Cell Arteritis Study Group. RESULTS: In total, 394 GPs and 937 rheumatologists responded to the survey. GPs referred a median of 25% of their suspected PMR patients for diagnosis and 50% of these were returned to their GP for management. In general, 39% of rheumatologists evaluated patients with suspected PMR >2 weeks after referral, and a median of 50% of patients had started prednisolone before rheumatologist evaluation. Direct comparison of initial treatment showed that the percentage prescribing >25 mg prednisolone daily for patients was 30% for GPs and 12% for rheumatologists. Diagnostic imaging was rarely used. More than half (56%) of rheumatologists experienced difficulties recruiting people with PMR to clinical trials. CONCLUSION: This large international survey indicates that a large proportion of people with PMR are not referred for diagnosis, and that the proportion of treatment-naive patients declined with increasing time from referral to assessment. Strategies are needed to change referral and management of people with PMR, to improve clinical practice and facilitate recruitment to clinical trials.