Search

ObjectivesTo investigate, whether inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) inpatients are at higher risk to develop a severe course of SARS-CoV-2 infections compared to the general population, data from the German COVID-19 registry for IRD patients and data from the Lean European Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) infected patients covering inpatients from the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infections were compared.Methods4310 (LEOSS registry) and 1139 cases (IRD registry) were collected in general. Data were matched for age and gender. From both registries, 732 matched inpatients (LEOSS registry: n = 366 and IRD registry: n = 366) were included for analyses in total.ResultsRegarding the COVID-19 associated lethality, no significant difference between both registries was observed. Age > 65°years, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis and the use of rituximab were associated with more severe courses of COVID-19. Female gender and the use of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNF-I) were associated with a better outcome of COVID-19.ConclusionInflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) patients have the same risk factors for severe COVID-19 regarding comorbidities compared to the general population without any immune-mediated disease or immunomodulation. The use of rituximab was associated with an increased risk for severe COVID-19. On the other hand, the use of TNF-I was associated with less severe COVID-19 compared to the general population, which might indicate a protective effect of TNF-I against severe COVID-19 disease.

Objective To analyse the clinical profile of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in at least double-vaccinated patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs).Methods Data from the physician-reported German COVID-19-IRD registry collected between February 2021 and July 2022 were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 cases were stratified according to patients’ vaccination status as being not vaccinated, double-vaccinated or triple-vaccinated prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection and descriptively compared. Independent associations between demographic and disease features and outcome of breakthrough infections were estimated by multivariable logistic regression.Results In total, 2314 cases were included in the analysis (unvaccinated n=923, double-vaccinated n=551, triple-vaccinated n=803, quadruple-vaccinated n=37). SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred after a median of 151 (range 14–347) days in patients being double-vaccinated, and after 88 (range 14–270) days in those with a third vaccination. Hospitalisation was required in 15% of unvaccinated, 8% of double-vaccinated and 3% of triple-vaccinated/quadruple-vaccinated patients (p

ObjectiveTo analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical care and vaccination acceptance of vasculitis patients in Germany.MethodsA web-based national survey was developed by rheumatology centers and vasculitis patient advocacy groups. The survey was distributed nationwide by mail and flyers and could be accessed via a QR-code or weblink from December 2021 to April 2022. Descriptive statistics [mean, median, standard derivation (SD), 25%, 75% quantile] were calculated. 95% confidence intervals were presented for responses that were directly related to the impact of COVID-19 on parameters associated with vasculitis patient care.ResultsThe online survey was completed by 117 patients with small and large vessel vasculitis [granulomatosis with polyangiitis (n = 69), eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (n = 16), microscopic polyangiitis (n = 12), giant cell arteritis (n = 17) and Takayasu's arteritis (n = 3)]. Prescheduled rheumatological appointments had been canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 12.6% of the respondents [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.3–20.0%); in 9% (95% CI, 4.5–15.6%)] appointments had been replaced by digital services. Therapeutic regimens were changed (shifted, reduced, or discontinued) due to the pandemic in 15.5% (95% CI 9.5–22.2%). Vaccination coverages were generally high compared to patients with other rheumatic diseases and the general population. Highest vaccination coverage was observed against COVID-19 (98.1% 95% CI 93.9–99.6%).ConclusionVasculitis patients experienced changes in medical care during COVID-19 pandemic such as cancelation of prescheduled rheumatology appointments and modifications in therapeutic regimens. The overall acceptance rate for vaccination was comparatively high, particularly for vaccination against COVID-19.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to transformations in healthcare infrastructures and increased use of (innovative) telemedicine (TM) tools. Comparison of the use of video consultation (VC) in rheumatology in the pre-pandemic period and during the pandemic might allow for evaluating this new form of consultancy in healthcare due to changing conditions and possibilities.Materials and methodsCross-sectional nationwide online survey among German rheumatologists and rheumatologists in training between March and May 2021 promoted by newsletters and Twitter posts.ResultsResults refer to 205 participants. The majority was male (59%), older than 40 years (90%). Thirty-eight percent stated to have employed TM before (“digital users”), 27% were using VC as part of their TM expertise (“VC-users”), 10% stated to have experience with TM but not VC (“TM-users”). Those negating the use of any TM (62%) were designated as “digital non-users.” TM-Knowledge was self-rated as 4 [median on a Likert Scale 1 (very high) to 6 (very low)] with a significant difference between digital users (VC-user 2.7 ± 1.2, TM-user 3.2 ± 1.1) and digital non-users (4.4 ± 1.3). The reported significant increase of VC use during the lockdown periods and between the lockdowns compared to the pre-pandemic phase was regarded as a proxy for VC acceptance in the pandemic. Reasons for VC non-use were administrative/technical efforts (21%), lack of technical equipment (15%), time constraints (12%), time required for individual VC sessions (12%), inadequate reimbursement (11%), lack of demand from patients (11%), data security concerns (9%), poor internet connection (8%), and lack of scientific evaluation/evidence (5%). Physicians considered the following clinical situations to be particularly suitable for VC: follow-up visits (VC-user 79%, TM-user 62%, digital non-user 47%), emergency consultations (VC-user 20%, TM-user 33%, digital non-user 20%), and patients presenting for the first time (VC-user 11%, TM-user 19%, digital non-user 8%).ConclusionEven though the pandemic situation, with social distancing and several lockdowns, provides an ideal environment for the implementation of new remote care forms as VC, its use and acceptance remained comparatively low due to multiple reasons. This analysis may help identify hurdles in employing innovative digital care models for rheumatologic healthcare.

BackgroundBased on given legislation the German approach to digital health applications (DiGA) allows reimbursed prescription of approved therapeutic software products since October 2020. For the first time, we evaluated DiGA-related acceptance, usage, and level of knowledge among members of the German Society for Rheumatology (DGRh) 1 year after its legal implementation.Materials and methodsAn anonymous cross-sectional online survey, initially designed by the health innovation hub (think tank and sparring partner of the German Federal Ministry of Health) and the German Pain Society was adapted to the field of rheumatology. The survey was promoted by DGRh newsletters and Twitter-posts. Ethical approval was obtained.ResultsIn total, 75 valid response-sets. 80% reported to care ≥ 70% of their working time for patients with rheumatic diseases. Most were working in outpatient clinics/offices (54%) and older than 40 years (84%). Gender distribution was balanced (50%). 70% knew the possibility to prescribe DiGA. Most were informed of this for the first time via trade press (63%), and only 8% via the scientific/professional society. 46% expect information on DiGA from the scientific societies/medical chambers (35%) but rarely from the manufacturer (10%) and the responsible ministry (4%). Respondents would like to be informed about DiGA via continuing education events (face-to-face 76%, online 84%), trade press (86%), and manufacturers′ test-accounts (64%). Only 7% have already prescribed a DiGA, 46% planned to do so, and 47% did not intend DiGA prescriptions. Relevant aspects for prescription are provided. 86% believe that using DiGA/medical apps would at least partially be feasible and understandable to their patients. 83% thought that data collected by the patients using DiGA or other digital solutions could at least partially influence health care positively. 51% appreciated to get DiGA data directly into their patient documentation system/electronic health record (EHR) and 29% into patient-owned EHR.ConclusionDigital health applications awareness was high whereas prescription rate was low. Mostly, physician-desired aspects for DiGA prescriptions were proven efficacy and efficiency for physicians and patients, risk of adverse effects and health care costs were less important. Evaluation of patients’ barriers and needs is warranted. Our results might contribute to the implementation and dissemination of DiGA.