COVID-19: What Do Rheumatologists Need to Know?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019, rapidly reaching global pandemic proportions. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented unique challenges to the rheumatology community. It is known that many individuals with rheumatic disease are at increased risk of severe disease from other infections, sparking a similar fear for COVID-19. In addition, medications routinely used in rheumatology practice are being trialled as treatments, with the potential for drug shortages for rheumatology patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Underlying comorbidities and active disease are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with rheumatic disease. Tocilizumab and hydroxychloroquine have not proven to be effective treatments in the management of COVID-19. Telehealth has become an essential tool for the rheumatology community to monitor patients during the pandemic. In this article, we summarise the available COVID-19 evidence that is of relevance to the rheumatology community. We discuss the risk of contracting COVID-19 in individuals with rheumatic disease, along with presenting features and clinical outcomes. We provide an overview of the treatments for COVID-19 which have significance for rheumatology. We highlight published recommendations which can guide our management of rheumatic disease populations during this pandemic. Finally, we discuss the challenges in delivering effective care virtually and present methods and tools which could be adapted for use.

Pharmacological treatment for managing bone health in axial spondyloarthropathy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Axial spondyloarthropathy (axSpA) is associated with an increased prevalence of osteoporosis, but no recommendations exist to guide management. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on bone mineral density (BMD) in axSpA. Electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi (q)-RCTs with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Independent reviewers undertook screening, and risk of bias and quality assessments. Primary outcomes of interest were BMD at spine and hip. Eight studies (two RCTs and six qRCTs) were included (602 participants). Moderate level evidence favoured alendronate over placebo at femoral neck [mean difference (MD) 2.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35], but there was low-level evidence showing no effect at the spine. There was moderate level evidence showing no effect of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) on BMD at total hip (MD - 0.01, 95% CI - 0.06 to 0.04). Very low-level evidence demonstrated no effect of TNFi on spine or femoral neck. Moderate level evidence favoured neridronate over infliximab at the spine (MD 3.26, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.38), but low-level evidence showed no effect at the total hip (MD 2.75, 95% CI - 0.21 to 5.71). There were no eligible studies investigating the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions. We conditionally recommend alendronate for management of low BMD in axSpA. The balance of evidence does not recommend the use of TNF-inhibitors for treating low BMD. There is a lack of high-quality evidence guiding clinicians treating osteoporosis in axSpA.

Tender to touch-Prevalence and impact of concomitant fibromyalgia and enthesitis in spondyloarthritis: An ancillary analysis of the ASAS PerSpA study.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the co-existence of fibromyalgia (FM) & enthesitis in individuals with spondyloarthritis (SpA). Secondary objectives were to identify clinical features associated with the presence of FM in enthesitis and analyse sex-specific differences. METHODS: This was an ancillary analysis of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society Peripheral Involvement in SpA (PerSpA) study. Enthesitis was defined as the presence of enthesitis ever. Clinical FM was defined as the rheumatologist's confirmation of the presence of FM. A score of≥5/6 on the Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Test (FiRST) defined a positive screening test for FM. RESULTS: Enthesitis ever and FM (EFM) co-existed in 10.3% (n=425) of the cohort using FiRST criteria and 5.3% using clinical diagnosis of FM. More individuals with FM by clinical diagnosis had imaging-confirmed enthesitis ever than by FiRST criteria. More females had EFM than males, defined clinically (76.9% vs 23.1%) or by FiRST criteria (62.6% vs 37.4%). Individuals with EFM had more severe disease across all measures compared to those with enthesitis only, with no significant difference between sexes. EFM was significantly associated with age, female sex, BMI, BASDAI and region. CONCLUSION: FM is an important comorbidity in the setting of enthesitis in SpA. While EFM is more common in females, it is not a rare condition in males. EFM is associated with worse disease severity measures in SpA in both males and females. Recognition of FM in the setting of enthesitis is essential to prevent overtreatment and optimise patient outcomes.

Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound has a role in out ruling low bone mineral density in axial spondyloarthropathy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the role of quantitative ultrasound (QUS) of the calcaneus in screening for osteoporosis in adults with axial spondyloarthropathy (axSpA). METHOD: Postmenopausal women and men over 50 years with axSpA were recruited for this observational cross-sectional study. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) assessed bone mineral density (BMD) of the spine and hip. QUS of the calcaneus produced broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA), speed of sound (SOS), stiffness index (SI), and T-scores. Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis determined the ability of QUS to discriminate between low and normal BMD. Thresholds were identified to (1) out rule low BMD, (2) identify osteoporosis, and (3) identify low BMD. The number of DXAs which could be avoided using this approach was calculated. RESULTS: 56 participants were analyzed. BUA, SI, and T-score QUS parameters correlated with BMD by DXA; SOS did not. All QUS parameters had the ability to discriminate between low and normal BMD (area under the curve varied from 0.695 to 0.779). QUS identified individuals without low BMD with 90% confidence, with BUA performing best (sensitivity 93%, negative predictive value 86%). Using QUS as a triage tool, up to 27% of DXA assessments could have been avoided. QUS could not confidently identify individuals with osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: QUS of the calcaneus confidently out ruled low BMD in individuals with axSpA, reducing the need for onward DXA referral by up to 27%. QUS is promising as a non-invasive triage tool in the assessment of osteoporosis in adults with axSpA.Key Points• Osteoporosis is common in axial spondyloarthropathy (SpA), but evaluation of bone health is suboptimal in this population.• Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) of the calcaneus can out rule low bone mineral density in individuals with axial SpA, reducing the need for DXA assessment.• QUS is a promising non-invasive triage tool in the assessment of bone health in axial SpA.

The Fascinating Paradox of Osteoporosis in Axial Spondyloarthropathy.

Low bone mineral density (BMD) is a recognized feature of axial spondyloarthropathy (axSpA). However, the osteoproliferation inherent in axSpA can make traditional dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry assessment inaccurate, particularly in structurally advanced disease. As a result, much about osteoporosis in axSpA is unknown. There is a wide variation in prevalence figures for low BMD in the literature. There is also no consensus regarding risk factors for developing low BMD in axSpA. It is accepted that there is an excess of vertebral fractures in patients with axSpA, but the role of low BMD in contributing to this risk is virtually unknown. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current knowledge regarding low BMD in axSpA. It highlights our current BMD measurement techniques along with their potential pitfalls, and discusses the significance of BMD in vertebral fractures. It also identifies gaps in our knowledge and makes recommendations for future research.