Search

Social media has become an important venue for rheumatologists, patients, organizations, and other stakeholders to discuss recent research advances in diagnosis and management of rheumatic disorders. In this article, we describe the current state of how social media may enhance dissemination, discourse, and collaboration in rheumatology research. Social media may refer to social platforms like Twitter and Instagram or digital media like podcasts and other websites that are operated for providing as free, open-access medical education (FOAM). Twitter has been one of the most active social media venues and continues to host a vibrant rheumatology community. Examples of research discussions on Twitter include organic user tweets, educational threads (“tweetorials”), live-tweeting academic conferences, and journals posting recently-accepted articles. Some research collaborations have been initiated through social media interactions. Social media may also directly contribute to research by facilitating the recruitment of study participants and the collection of survey-based data. Thus, social media is an evolving and important tool to enhance research discourse, dissemination, and collaboration in rheumatology.

Highlights • This scoping review provides an up-to-date overview of published evidence regarding the frequency and severity of acute viral respiratory AEs related to antirheumatic disease therapies. • Glucocorticoid use was associated with a higher frequency of acute upper and lower respiratory viral events. • Mild viral respiratory infections occurred more frequently in several studies in which patients were treated with JAKi, most notably at higher doses. • TNFi and IL-17 inhibitors seemed to be associated with higher frequency of mild viral respiratory infections such as URTI and nasopharyngitis. • Our review identifies a knowledge gap for most antirheumatic medications and their acute respiratory viral complications; in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, increased widespread respiratory viral PCR testing offers immediate research opportunities to clarify the safety of antirheumatic therapies in terms of viral respiratory complications., Introduction COVID-19 is an acute respiratory viral infection that threatens people worldwide, including people with rheumatic disease, although it remains unclear to what extent various antirheumatic disease therapies increase susceptibility to complications of viral respiratory infections. Objective The present study undertakes a scoping review of available evidence regarding the frequency and severity of acute respiratory viral adverse events related to antirheumatic disease therapies. Methods Online databases were used to identify, since database inception, studies reporting primary data on acute respiratory viral infections in patients utilizing antirheumatic disease therapies. Independent reviewer pairs charted data from eligible studies using a standardized data abstraction tool. Results A total of 180 studies were eligible for qualitative analysis. While acknowledging that the extant literature has a lack of specificity in reporting of acute viral infections or complications thereof, the data suggest that use of glucocorticoids, JAK inhibitors (especially high-dose), TNF inhibitors, and anti-IL-17 agents may be associated with an increased frequency of respiratory viral events. Available data suggest no increased frequency or risk of respiratory viral events with NSAIDs, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, or apremilast. One large cohort study demonstrated an association with leflunomide use and increased risk of acute viral respiratory events compared to non-use. Conclusion This scoping review identified that some medication classes may confer increased risk of acute respiratory viral infections. However, definitive data are lacking and future studies should address this knowledge gap.

International audience; Objective. To evaluate the impact of telemedicine use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on rheumatology trainees. Methods. A voluntary, anonymous, web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish, or French from August 19 to October 5, 2020. Adult and pediatric rheumatology trainees were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales, the survey assessed prior and current telemedicine use, impact on training, and supervision after COVID-19 prompted rapid telemedicine implementation. Results. Surveys were received from 302 trainees from 33 countries, with 83% in adult rheumatology training programs. Reported telemedicine use increased from 13% before the pandemic to 82% during the pandemic. United States trainees predominantly used video visits, whereas outside the United States telemedicine was predominantly audio only. Most (65%) evaluated new patients using telemedicine. More respondents were comfortable using telemedicine for follow-up patients (69%) than for new patients (25%). Only 39% of respondents reported receiving telemedicine-focused training, including instruction on software, clinical skills, and billing, whereas more than half of United States trainees (59%) had training. Postconsultation verbal discussion was the most frequent form of supervision; 24% reported no supervision. Trainees found that telemedicine negatively impacted supervision (50%) and the quality of clinical teaching received (70%), with only 9% reporting a positive impact. Conclusions. Despite widespread uptake of telemedicine, a low proportion of trainees received telemedicine training, and many lacked comfort in evaluating patients, particularly new patients. Inadequate supervision and clinical teaching were areas of concern. If telemedicine remains in widespread use, ensuring appropriate trainee supervision and teaching should be prioritized. No funding was received for this study. The views expressed here are those of the authors and participating members of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance and do not necessarily represent the views of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, or any other organization.

The relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in these patients.We conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID-19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel-Haenszel formula with random effects models.Of the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta-analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16-2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08-2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID-19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD.Patients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and an increased mortality rate.

As of the end of March 2020, the covid-19 pandemic has resulted in over 850 000 confirmed cases and an estimated 42 000 deaths worldwide.1 All agree that safe and effective therapies for treatment and prevention are urgently needed. In the midst of this rapidly progressing crisis, evidence has emerged suggesting that antimalarial medications, such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), may be efficacious for covid-19 treatment. After amplification from politicians, news outlets and social media, a rush to acquire supplies of HCQ resulted in worldwide shortages. Recent government policies may have exacerbated these issues, where wider use in both covid-19 treatment and prevention were authorised or recommended by India, the US Food and Drug Administration and other countries.2–4 In response to dwindling supplies, several US states have issued restrictions on HCQ use including limiting dispensation quantities and verifying indications.5–8 Rheumatologists, researchers and patient partners must advocate for the appropriate distribution and use of HCQ, as millions of people with rheumatic diseases worldwide depend on HCQ to control disease activity and maintain quality of life. In doing so, we must also remind ourselves to ‘make haste slowly’ ( festina lente ). Emanuel et al 9 published a well-timed commentary suggesting the following principles for fairly allocating scarce resources during the covid-19 crisis: equal treatment, attempts to maximise benefits and prioritising the most vulnerable. These recommendations echo prior guidance published in 2016 by the WHO on how to address future infectious disease outbreaks.10 The report cautioned that ‘special attention should be given to ensuring that persons who face heightened susceptibility to harm or injustice during infectious disease outbreaks are able to contribute to decisions about infectious disease outbreak planning and response’. This ethical framework offers health systems a structure for approaching the use and distribution of HCQ during the covid-19 pandemic to minimise …

BackgroundWe describe the early experiences of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received the COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsFrom 2 April to 30 April 2021, we conducted an online, international survey of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination. We collected patient-reported data on clinician communication, beliefs and intent about discontinuing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around the time of vaccination, and patient-reported adverse events after vaccination.ResultsWe analysed 2860 adults with systemic rheumatic diseases who received COVID-19 vaccination (mean age 55.3 years, 86.7% female, 86.3% white). Types of COVID-19 vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (53.2%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (22.6%), Moderna (21.3%), Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (1.7%) and others (1.2%). The most common rheumatic disease was rheumatoid arthritis (42.3%), and 81.2% of respondents were on a DMARD. The majority (81.9%) reported communicating with clinicians about vaccination. Most (66.9%) were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy, although many (44.3%) were concerned about rheumatic disease flares. After vaccination, the most reported patient-reported adverse events were fatigue/somnolence (33.4%), headache (27.7%), muscle/joint pains (22.8%) and fever/chills (19.9%). Rheumatic disease flares that required medication changes occurred in 4.6%.ConclusionAmong adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination, patient-reported adverse events were typical of those reported in the general population. Most patients were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy. The relatively low frequency of rheumatic disease flare requiring medications was reassuring.

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.

Management of women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) during pregnancy presents unique clinical challenges. Women with both RA and SLE can have disease flares during pregnancy, leading to pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infants, and preterm delivery. Disease should be under control prior to conception. Women with obstetric APS need to be anticoagulated during pregnancy. Many but not all antirheumatic medications can be used during pregnancy and lactation.

Introduction Several months into the COVID-19 pandemic, safe and effective treatments against this global health disaster have yet to be identified. Clinical research trials around the world are underway testing a wide array of possible medications. In particular, the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and treatment has created many unprecedented challenges for the scientific community and the public. Areas covered We critically assessed major events from February – May 2020 that contributed to widespread use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19. We aimed to explore how opinions toward hydroxychloroquine may shift from early enthusiasm (based on in vitro and preliminary clinical data) to the hope for a miracle cure (through communication and promotion of questionable results) and, finally, to a rise of skepticism as more in-depth analyses are emerging. Expert opinion Mindful and rigorous acquisition of data, as well as its interpretation, are essential to an effective pandemic response. The rapid and premature promotion of results has had major implications for global crisis management, even creating distrust among the public. It is crucial for the medical and scientific community to incorporate the lessons learned from this situation.

Background: During the novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, physicians in residency and fellowshitraining programs are serving as essential healthca

Background:The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare delivery and education of physicians, including rheumatology trainees.Objectives:To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical experiences, research opportunities, and well-being of rheumatology trainees.Methods:A voluntary, anonymous, web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish, or French from 19/08/2020 to 05/10/2020. Adult and paediatric rheumatology trainees worldwide in training in 2020 were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple choice questions, Likert scales, and free text answers, we assessed trainee patient care activities, redeployment, research, and well-being.Results:The 302 respondents were from 33 countries, with most (83%, 252/302) in adult rheumatology training. Many trainees (45%, 135/300) reported an increase in non-rheumatology clinical work (e.g. care of COVID-19 patients), with 52% of these (70/135) also continuing rheumatology clinical work. COVID-19 redeployment was not optional for 68% (91/134).Trainees reported a negative impact of the pandemic in their growth in rheumatology (Figure 1). They also reported a substantial impact on several training areas: outpatient clinics (79%, 238/302), inpatient consultations (59%, 177/302), formal teaching (55%, 167/302), procedures (53%, 147/302), teaching opportunities (52%, 157/302), and ultrasonography (36%, 110/302), with 87-96% perceiving a negative impact on these areas. Only 54% (159/294) reported feeling comfortable with their level of clinical supervision during the pandemic (Figure 1).Many trainees (46%, 128/280) reported changes in research experiences during the pandemic; 39% (110/285) reported that COVID-19 negatively affected their ability to continue their pre-pandemic research and 50% (142/285) reported difficulty maintaining research goals (Figure 1).Some rheumatology trainees reported having health condition(s) putting them at high risk for COVID-19 (10%, 30/302) and 14% of trainees (41/302) reported having had COVID-19 (Table 1). Only 53% (160/302) reported feeling physically safe in the workplace while 25% (76/302) reported not feeling physically safe; reasons included lack of training about COVID-19, lack of comfort in the clinical setting, insufficient personal protective equipment, immunocompromised state, and pregnancy. Half (151/302) reported burnout and 68% (204/302) an increase in stress from work during the pandemic (Figure 1), whilst 25% (75/302) reported that changes to their training programme negatively impacted their physical health.Conclusion:The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the experience of rheumatology training as well as the well-being of trainees globally. Our data highlight concerns for rheumatology trainees including research opportunities and clinical care which should be a focus for curriculum planning.Figure 1.Rheumatology trainee perceptions of pandemic impact and changes in training programme.Table 1.Estimated hazard ratios, adjusted for age and gender, for individuals with rheumatoid arthritisEuropen = 89ROWn = 213Combinedn = 302Disability1 (1)9 (4)10 (3)High risk7 (8)23 (11)30 (10)Pregnant4 (5)15 (7)19 (6)Shielding/Quarantining12 (13)70 (33)82 (27)Acquired COVID-1920 (22)21 (10)41 (14)Disclosure of Interests:Kristen Young: None declared, Su-Ann Yeoh: None declared, Michael Putman: None declared, Elizabeth Graef: None declared, Francis Berenbaum: None declared, Richard Conway: None declared, Rebecca Grainger Speakers bureau: Speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Cornerstones, all not related to this work, Consultant of: Consultancy fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Cornerstones, all not related to this work, Grant/research support from: Travel assistance from Pfizer, not related to this work, Adam Kilian: None declared, Maximilian Konig: None declared, Jean Liew Grant/research support from: Research grant from Pfizer unrelated to this manuscript, Pedro M Machado Speakers bureau: Speaker fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this manuscript, Consultant of: Consulting fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this manuscript, Sebastian E. Sattui: None declared, Jeffrey Sparks Consultant of: Consultancy for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Optum, and Pfizer unrelated to this manuscript, Grant/research support from: Research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to this manuscript, Paul Sufka: None declared, Manuel Ugarte-Gil Grant/research support from: Research grants from Janssen and Pfizer unrelated to this manuscript, Laura Upton: None declared, Zachary Wallace: None declared, Jinoos Yazdany Consultant of: Consultancy for Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, not related to this work, Grant/research support from: Research grants from Gilead and Pfizer, not related to this work, Arundathi Jayatilleke: None declared.

Background:The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid increase in remote consultations in rheumatology care. Due to the potential impact of this change on rheumatology clinical training, we investigated trainees’ experiences with telemedicine.Objectives:To assess the impact of telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatology training, including supervision.Methods:A voluntary, anonymous web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish, or French from 19/08/2020 to 05/10/2020. Adult and paediatric rheumatology trainees worldwide in training in 2020 were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple choice questions, Likert scales, and free text answers, we collected data regarding prior and current telemedicine use, training, and supervision.Results:302 respondents from 33 countries completed the survey, with most (83%, 252/302) in adult rheumatology training. Reported use of telemedicine increased from 13% (39/302) pre-pandemic to 82% (247/302) (Table 1). European trainees predominantly utilised audio-only compared to trainees from the rest of the world (ROW) who predominantly utilised audio-video telemedicine.Most trainees continued to evaluate new patients using telemedicine (65%, 161/247). A larger proportion of trainees were comfortable using telemedicine to evaluate follow-up (69% 170/247) versus new patients (25%, 41/161) (Figure 1).Only 32% (97/302) were trained in telemedicine, with the highest proportion among United States (US) trainees (59%, 69/116); subjects included software, clinical skills, and billing. The majority of trainees found this helpful (92%, 89/97).Supervision was most frequently in the form of verbal discussion after the consultation (Table 1); 24% (59/247) had no telemedicine supervision during the pandemic. In general, trainees found telemedicine negatively impacted their supervision (51%, 123/242) and clinical teaching quality (70%, 171/244); only 9% reported a positive impact on these areas.Conclusion:Adoption of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to areas of concern for rheumatology trainees including inadequate supervision and clinical teaching. Our results suggest a need for education on evaluation of new patients using telemedicine, increasing telemedicine training, and ensuring adequate supervisory arrangements.Table 1.Telemedicine use, supervision, and training by region. Data is presented as n (%). Rest of the world (ROW) data includes Asia (50), Central and South America (23), Canada (12), Australia (8), and Africa (4).Europen = 89USn = 116ROWn = 97Combinedn = 302Telemedicine usePre-pandemic15 (17)9 (8)15 (15)39 (13)During pandemic64 (72)112 (97)71 (73)247 (82)Telemedicine modalitypre-pandemicAudio-only14 (93)3 (33)8 (53)25 (64)Audio-video1 (7)7 (78)7 (47)15 (38)Telemedicine modality during pandemicAudio-only56 (88)47 (42)51 (72)154 (62)Audio-video7 (11)100 (89)29 (41)136 (55)Supervisionpre-pandemicReal-time observation (part of visit)0 (0)4 (44)3 (20)7 (18)Real-time observation (full visit)0 (0)2 (22)2 (13)4 (10)Verbal discussion after8 (53)3 (33)7 (47)18 (46)Written communication after0 (0)0 (0)1 (7)1 (3)None7 (47)2 (22)5 (33)14 (36)Supervision during pandemicReal-time observation (part of visit)2 (3)54 (48)15 (21)71 (29)Real-time observation (full visit)3 (5)32 (29)8 (11)43 (17)Verbal discussion after32 (50)65 (58)28 (39)125 (51)Written communication after7 (11)15 (13)9 (13)31 (13)None28 (44)9 (8)22 (31)59 (24)Figure 1.Rheumatology trainee comfort levels in using telemedicine during the pandemic.Disclosure of Interests:Su-Ann Yeoh: None declared, Kristen Young: None declared, Michael Putman: None declared, Elizabeth Graef: None declared, Francis Berenbaum: None declared, Richard Conway: None declared, Rebecca Grainger Speakers bureau: Speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Cornerstones, all not related to this work, Consultant of: Consultancy fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Cornerstones, all not related to this work, Grant/research support from: Travel assistance from Pfizer, not related to this work, Adam Kilian: None declared, Maximilian Konig: None declared, Jean Liew Grant/research support from: Research grant from Pfizer unrelated to this manuscript, Pedro M Machado Speakers bureau: Speaker fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this manuscript, Consultant of: Consulting fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this manuscript, Sebastian E. Sattui: None declared, Jeffrey Sparks Consultant of: Consultancy for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Optum, and Pfizer unrelated to this manuscript, Grant/research support from: Research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to this manuscript, Paul Sufka: None declared, Manuel Ugarte-Gil Grant/research support from: Research grants from Janssen and Pfizer unrelated to this manuscript, Laura Upton: None declared, Zachary Wallace: None declared, Jinoos Yazdany Consultant of: Consultancy for Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, not related to this work, Grant/research support from: Research grants from Gilead and Pfizer, not related to this work, Arundathi Jayatilleke: None declared