Search

Introduction/Background There is a lack of data on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination safety in children and young people (CYP) with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) as they were excluded from initial vaccine trials. Vaccination guidance is based on data from adults with or CYP without RMDs. Description/Method Our objective was to describe the safety of SARS-COV-2 vaccination in adolescents with inflammatory RMDs and adults with JIA. We described patient characteristics, flares, and adverse events in adolescent cases under 18 with inflammatory RMDs and adult cases aged 18 or above with JIA submitted to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) COVAX registry. Discussion/Results Thirty-six adolescent cases were reported from 4 countries, mostly female (58%) with JIA (42%: 28% non-systemic JIA, 14% systemic JIA) and a median age of 15 [IQR: 14.5, 17]. Most were in remission (64%) or had minimal (22%) disease activity at the time of vaccination. Over half of the adolescent group (56%) reported early reactogenic-like AEs. One mild polyarthralgia flare and one serious AE of special interest (malaise) were reported. No CYP reported SARS-CoV-2 infection post-vaccination. No cases of paediatric inflammatory multi-system syndrome or myocarditis adverse events were reported. Seventy-four adult JIA cases were reported from 11 countries; 73% were female with a median age of 26 [IQR: 23, 31]. Eight-five percent had ns-JIA and 15% had s-JIA. Almost two thirds (62%) reported early reactogenic-like AEs and two flares were reported (mild polyarthralgia and moderate uveitis). No serious AEs of special interest were reported among adults with JIA. Three 20-30 year old females were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 post-vaccination; all fully recovered. Key learning points/Conclusion In this observational registry dataset, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines appeared safe in adolescents with RMDs and adults with JIA, with a low frequency of disease flares, serious AEs, and SARS-CoV-2 re-infection seen in both populations.

The Portuguese Rheumatology Society (SPR) embraced quality as a major goal and launched, in early 2015, a program to aim for excellence in global clinical care: Rheuma SPACE - Standard Practice Aiming Clinical Excellence. Evaluating daily reality is the first step in a quality development timeline, ultimately contributing for health gains. Herein we describe the results of the evaluation of the quality indicators defined for this project and the improvement strategies identified. The Rheuma SPACE project included three phases: 1) establishing a set of quality indicators and an excellence quality model; 2) assessment of the current care at Rheumatology departments concerning the defined quality indicators in the scope of the excellence model; and 3) elaboration of global and customized reports for each participating Rheumatology department, resulting in the identification of improvement opportunities. Ten Rheumatology departments, countrywide, including larger and smaller institutions, were asked to participate in Rheuma SPACE. This resulted in an individual report for each department along with global benchmarking practices analysis. Furthermore, a list of improvement initiatives was developed. We concluded that departments lack physicians and need exclusively dedicated nurses. Time dedicated to research and audit activities should be specifically allocated. Internal contracting is well established, and professionals are committed to targets. Processes are still suboptimal, needing standardization of triage criteria, more frequent follow-up, as well as better medical records and multidisciplinary coverage. Regarding outcomes, patients are satisfied with the provided care and professionals with the working environment. However, department facilities for the former, and career related aspects, for the latter should improve. With this innovative study conducted in Portugal we expect to have enlightened tailored opportunities for improvement, ensure patient-focused practices and be able to define the indispensable quality requirements for excellence.

Background/Aims People with inflammatory/autoimmune rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (I-RMDs) were excluded from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine clinical development programmes; therefore, concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in this population still exist. Previous studies in people with I-RMDs were small albeit reassuring in terms of the incidence of I-RMD flares and adverse events. Our aim was to describe the safety of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in people with I-RMD. Methods Physician-reported registry of I-RMD and non-inflammatory RMD (NI-RMDs) patients vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. From 5/Feb/2021 to 27/Jul/2021, we collected data on demographics, vaccination, RMD diagnosis, disease activity, immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive treatments, flares, adverse events (AEs) and SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Data were analysed descriptively. Results The study included 5121 participants from 30 countries, 90% with I-RMDs (n = 4604, 68% female, mean age 60.5 years) and 10% with NI-RMDs (n = 517, 77% female, mean age 71.4). Inflammatory joint diseases (58%), connective tissue diseases (18%) and vasculitis (12%) were the most frequent diagnostic groups; 54% received conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), 42% biologic DMARDs and 35% immunosuppressants. Most patients received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (70%), 17% AstraZeneca/Oxford and 8% Moderna. In fully vaccinated cases, breakthrough infections were reported in 0.7% of I-RMD patients and 1.1% of NI-RMD patients. I-RMD flares were reported in 4.4% of cases (0.6% severe), 1.5% resulting in medication changes. AEs were reported in 37% of cases (37% I-RMD, 40% NI-RMD), serious AEs in 0.5% (0.4% I-RMD, 1.9% NI-RMD). Conclusion The safety profiles of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with I-RMD were reassuring, and comparable to patients with NI-RMDs. The majority of patients tolerated their vaccination well with rare reports of I-RMD flare and very rare reports of serious AEs. These findings should provide reassurance to rheumatologists and vaccine recipients, and promote confidence in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety in I-RMD patients. Disclosure P.M. Machado: None. S. Lawson-Tovey: None. A. Strangfeld: None. E. Mateus: None. K. Hyrich: None. L. Gossec: None. L. Carmona: None. A. Rodrigues: None. B. Raffeiner: None. C. Duarte: None. E. Hachulla: None. E. Veillard: None. E. Strakova: None. G.R. Burmester: None. G.K. Yardimci: None. J.A. Gómez-Puerta: None. J. Zepa: None. L. Kearsley-Fleet: None. L. Trefond: None. M.M. Cunha: None. M. Mosca: None. M. Cornalba: None. M. Soubrier: None. N. Roux: None. O. Brocq: None. P. Durez: None. R. Conway: None. T. Goulenok: None. J.W.J. Bijlsma: None. I. McInnes: None. X. Mariette: None.

Background: The impact and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease are unclear. We developed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease worldwide. Methods: Survey questions were developed by key stakeholder groups and disseminated worldwide through social media, websites, and patient support organisations. Questions included demographics, rheumatic disease diagnosis, COVID-19 diagnosis, adoption of protective behaviours to mitigate COVID-19 exposure, medication access and changes, health-care access and communication with rheumatologists, and changes in employment or schooling. Adults age 18 years and older with inflammatory or autoimmune rheumatic diseases were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We excluded participants reporting only non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as fibromyalgia or osteoarthritis. Findings: 12 117 responses to the survey were received between April 3 and May 8, 2020, and of these, 10 407 respondents had included appropriate age data. We included complete responses from 9300 adults with rheumatic disease (mean age 46·1 years; 8375 [90·1%] women, 893 [9·6%] men, and 32 [0·3%] participants who identified as non-binary). 6273 (67·5%) of respondents identified as White, 1565 (16·8%) as Latin American, 198 (2·1%) as Black, 190 (2·0%) as Asian, and 42 (0·5%) as Native American or Aboriginal or First Nation. The most common rheumatic disease diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis (3636 [39·1%] of 9300), systemic lupus erythematosus (2882 [31·0%]), and Sjogren's syndrome (1290 [13·9%]). Most respondents (6921 [82·0%] of 8441) continued their antirheumatic medications as prescribed. Almost all (9266 [99·7%] of 9297) respondents adopted protective behaviours to limit SARS-CoV-2 exposure. A change in employment status occurred in 2524 (27·1%) of 9300) of respondents, with a 13·6% decrease in the number in full-time employment (from 4066 to 3514). Interpretation: People with rheumatic disease maintained therapy and followed public health advice to mitigate the risks of COVID-19. Substantial employment status changes occurred, with potential implications for health-care access, medication affordability, mental health, and rheumatic disease activity. Funding: American College of Rheumatology.

BackgroundThere is a lack of data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination safety in children and young people (CYP) with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Current vaccination guidance is based on data from adults with RMDs or CYP without RMDs.ObjectivesTo describe the safety of SARS-COV-2 vaccination in adolescents with inflammatory RMDs and adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).MethodsWe described patient characteristics, flares and adverse events (AEs) in adolescent cases under 18 with inflammatory RMDs and adult cases aged 18 or above with JIA submitted to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVAX registry.ResultsA total of 110 cases were reported to the registry. Thirty-six adolescent cases were reported from four countries, most with JIA (42%). Over half (56%) reported early reactogenic-like AEs. One mild polyarthralgia flare and one serious AE of special interest (malaise) were reported. No CYP reported SARS-CoV-2 infection postvaccination.Seventy-four adult JIA cases were reported from 11 countries. Almost two-thirds (62%) reported early reactogenic-like AEs and two flares were reported (mild polyarthralgia and moderate uveitis). No serious AEs of special interest were reported among adults with JIA. Three female patients aged 20–30 years were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 postvaccination; all fully recovered.ConclusionsThis is an important contribution to research on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety in adolescents with RMDs and adults with JIA. It is important to note the low frequency of disease flares, serious AEs and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection seen in both populations, although the dataset is limited by its size.

Background: Quality of care is a key component of the right to health, and the route to equity and dignity. The aim of the project Rheuma SPACE - Standard Practice Aiming Clinical Excellence was to develop a set of quality indicators focused in rheumatoid arthritis care and apply them to rheumatology departments of the Portuguese National Health Service in order to benchmark the care for these patients. This article details the methodology that was applied. Methodology: This was a single country, three-phase project, each phase comprising multiple steps. The first step defined quality indicators and the excellence quality model to be used. It involved a literature search for international benchmarking of quality of care initiatives and indicators, followed by a pre-selection of an initial set of indicators. The set of indicators was latter on narrowed after an online Delphi round with all Portuguese rheumatologists and two consensus meetings involving the study task force. A set of 26 quality indicators was defined, within the three classic Donabedian dimensions of healthcare quality: Structure (9), Processes (11), and Outcomes (6). These indicators cover eleven domains of quality of care: personnel and organizational structure, training and research, facilities, equipment and information technology, budgeting and financial resources, access to care, clinical records, patient communication, multidisciplinary management, clinical outcomes, and patient and personnel satisfaction. Decision on quality and excellence thresholds for each of the 26 quality indicators was agreed upon a consensus meeting gathering principal investigators of the eight Rheumatology Departments that decided to participate, task force core set members and invited representatives of all Portuguese Departments/Units. Rheumatoid arthritis was the chosen disease model of the project based on the reliability of the outcomes to be measured in the context of this condition. The second step was the assessment of the participating Rheumatology Departments. During eighteen months, research teams applied the 26 quality indicators to their own Departments. The third step comprised data analysis and the elaboration of individual Rheumatology Department reports and of a global public report. Results: Eight Departments, comprising 80 specialists, 20 residents and 30 nurses, covering 5.904.080 inhabitants, underwent quality evaluation. More than one thousand patients (1,325) and 113 health professionals’ surveys were analysed, as well as data from 570 clinical records and 3,927 medical appointments on rheumatoid arthritis patients. Discussion: 26 quality indicators were used for the first evaluation of Portuguese Rheumatology Departments, turning Rheuma SPACE into a pioneer project. Data analysis and benchmarking will be the subject of a further publication.

Objectives Patient global assessment (PGA) is purported to add the patient’s perspective in the composite measures of RA. However, PGA is not standardized and it is not known whether patients’ interpretation of the measure is consistent with its intended purpose. This study aimed to explore difficulties experienced by patients with RA in completing PGA, and to assess the impact of a structured explanation in improving its validity and reliability. Methods This was a mixed methods study, using interviews, focus groups and PGA data. During interviews, patients (convenience sample, n = 33) completed three often-used PGA formulations. Then a nurse provided structured explanation about what PGA is and why it is used. After further discussion, patients completed one PGA version again. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. We compared PGA scores pre- and post-explanation (Wilcoxon signed-ranks) and the proportion of patients achieving RA remission with PGA ⩽1 (McNemar’s tests). Results Three themes emerged: understanding the meaning of PGA, the purpose of PGA and measurement difficulties. The difficulties caused systematic errors in PGA completion such as marking higher when feeling well, marking near the centre or away from zero. The structured explanation was helpful. Following the explanation, the median PGA score decreased from 3.0 to 2.1 cm, and the proportion of non-remission solely due to PGA >1 from 52% to 41%; none of these changes was statistically significant. Conclusion Many patients have difficulties in completing PGA. Standardization of PGA and a structured explanation may improve its clarity, validity and reliability.

This paper discusses how to restructure the process of clinical research to maximise the potential of precision medicinehttp://ow.ly/1ZCc30nuw2a

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) report significant levels of disease impact, which are improved, but not fully abrogated by immunosuppressive therapy, even when remission is achieved. This imposes the need for adjuvant interventions targeting the uncontrolled domains of disease impact. Non-pharmacological interventions are widely used for this purpose, but they have not been the object of professional recommendations or guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To propose multidisciplinary recommendations to inform clinical care providers regarding the employment of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions in the management of patients with RA. METHODS: The EULAR standardized operating procedures for the development of recommendations were followed. First, a systematic literature review was performed. Then, a multidisciplinary Technical Expert Panel (TEP) met to develop and discuss the recommendations and research agenda. For each developed recommendation i) the level of evidence and grade of recommendation were determined, and ii) the level of agreement among TEP members was set. A recommendation was adopted if approved by ≥75% of the TEP members, and the level of agreement was considered high when ≥8. All relevant national societies were included in this construction process to attain their endorsement. RESULTS: Based on evidence and expert opinion, the TEP developed and agreed on five overarching principles and 12 recommendations for non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions in patients with RA. The mean level of agreement between the TEP members ranged between 8.5 and 9.9. The recommendations include a broad spectrum of intervention areas, such as exercise, hydrokinesiotherapy, psychological interventions, orthoses, education, general management of comorbidities, among others; and they set the requirements for their application. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are based on the consensus judgment of clinical experts from a wide range of disciplines and patients' representatives from Portugal. Given the evidence for effectiveness, feasibility and safety, non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions should be an integral part of standard care for people with RA. It is hoped that these recommendations should be widely implemented in clinical practice. The target audience for these recommendations includes all health professionals involved in the care of patients with RA. The target patient population includes adult Portuguese people with RA. publishersversion published