Search

To assess the perceptions and preferences of telemedicine among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.We conducted an online survey among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Attitudes about telemedicine (i.e., telemedicine acceptability), evaluated using the validated Telemedicine Perception Questionnaire (TMPQ), and visit satisfaction were assessed for different telemedicine experiences and types of autoimmune rheumatic disease.Of 3,369 invitations, 819 responses were received. Participants had a mean ± SD age of 58.6 ± 11.6 years and were mostly White (n = 759, or 92.7%) and female (n = 702, or 85.7%). Of the 618 participants who said that telemedicine was available to them, 449 (72.7%) reported having a telemedicine visit, with 303 (67.5%) reporting attending a telemedicine video visit. On a 0 to 10 scale, the mean ± SD visit satisfaction score was 7.3 ± 1.8, with 25.8% of respondents being very satisfied (scores of 9 or 10). Video visits and higher TMPQ scores were associated with higher satisfaction. Compared to those who did not experience a telemedicine visit, patients who did were more likely to prefer telemedicine (video or phone) for routine visits (73.7% versus 44.3%; P 0.001), reviewing test results (64.8% versus 53.8%; P 0.001), when considering changing medications (40.5% versus 26.8%; P 0.001), and when starting a new injectable medication (18.9% versus 12.7%; P = 0.02).During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases frequently had telemedicine visits, with the majority held via video, and were satisfied with these visits. These results suggest that because patients prefer telemedicine for certain visit reasons, maximizing effective use of telemedicine will require personalized patient scheduling.

Published by Elsevier Ltd., Background: Differences in the distribution of individual-level clinical risk factors across regions do not fully explain the observed global disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to investigate the associations between environmental and societal factors and country-level variations in mortality attributed to COVID-19 among people with rheumatic disease globally. Methods: In this observational study, we derived individual-level data on adults (aged 18-99 years) with rheumatic disease and a confirmed status of their highest COVID-19 severity level from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) registry, collected between March 12, 2020, and Aug 27, 2021. Environmental and societal factors were obtained from publicly available sources. The primary endpoint was mortality attributed to COVID-19. We used a multivariable logistic regression to evaluate independent associations between environmental and societal factors and death, after controlling for individual-level risk factors. We used a series of nested mixed-effects models to establish whether environmental and societal factors sufficiently explained country-level variations in death. Findings: 14 044 patients from 23 countries were included in the analyses. 10 178 (72·5%) individuals were female and 3866 (27·5%) were male, with a mean age of 54·4 years (SD 15·6). Air pollution (odds ratio 1·10 per 10 μg/m3 [95% CI 1·01-1·17]; p=0·0105), proportion of the population aged 65 years or older (1·19 per 1% increase [1·10-1·30]; p, MAG is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K01 AR070585 and K24 AR074534 [JY]). KDW is supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development award. JAS is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K23 AR069688, R03 AR075886, L30 AR066953, P30 AR070253, and P30 AR072577), the Rheumatology Research Foundation (K Supplement Award and R Bridge Award), the Brigham Research Institute, and the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund. NJP is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258). AD-G is supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. RH was supported by the Justus-Liebig University Giessen Clinician Scientist Program in Biomedical Research to work on this registry. JY is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (K24 AR074534 and P30 AR070155).

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis medication use is suboptimal. Simple interventions personalized to a patients’ stage of readiness are needed to encourage osteoporosis medication use. OBJECTIVES: To estimate interrelationships of sociodemographic factors, perceived fracture risk, health literacy, receipt of medication information, medication trust and readiness to use osteoporosis medication; and apply observed relationships to inform design specifications for a clinical decision support application that can be used for personalized patient counseling. METHODS: Data from a national sample of older women (n = 1759) with self-reported history of fractures and no current use of osteoporosis medication treatment were used to estimate an acceptable path model that describes associations among key sociodemographic characteristics, health literacy, perceived fracture risk, receipt of osteoporosis medication information within the past year, trust in osteoporosis medications, and readiness to use osteoporosis medication. Path model results were used to inform an application for personalized patient counseling that can be easily integrated into clinical decision support systems. RESULTS: Increased age (β = 0.13), trust for medications (β = 0.12), higher perceived fracture risk (β = 0.21), and having received medication information within the past year (β = 0.21) were all positively associated with readiness to use osteoporosis medication (p < 0.0001). Whereas, health literacy (β = − 0.09) was inversely associated with readiness to use osteoporosis medication (p < 0.0001). Using these results, a brief 6-item question set was constructed for simple integration into clinical decision support applications. Patient responses were used to inform a provider dashboard that integrates a patient’s stage of readiness for osteoporosis medication use, predictors of readiness, and personalized counseling points appropriate to their stage of readiness. CONCLUSION: Content of counseling strategies must be aligned with a patient’s stage of readiness to use treatment. Path modeling can be effectively used to identify factors for inclusion in an evidenced-based clinical decision support application designed to assist providers with personalized patient counseling and osteoporosis medication use decisions.

Osteoporosis management has evolved significantly over the past decade, with telehealth emerging as an effective tool to manage bone health in a growing patient population. This review explores the advantages and disadvantages of telehealth use for osteoporosis management while highlighting recent studies of clinical importance.A wide variety of telehealth approaches are used today, from phone or video telemedicine appointments with physicians and advanced practice providers, to electronic systems for triage and consultation with osteoporosis specialists. Contemporary studies show that telehealth can facilitate health care access to underserved communities and enhance physician-patient communication, as well as provide patient education. However, barriers such as inexperience or lack of access to technology, suboptimal patient-clinician relationship building process, and difficulties with follow-up have limited the use of telehealth to certain situations.Telehealth has proven to be an effective resource for managing and treating osteoporosis patients. As its use continues to grow, important limitations must be accounted for to avoid lapses in care. Further research should keep these factors in mind as the use of this technology progresses.

Objective This study aimed to analyze the concerns and health-related behaviors in patients with vasculitis during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in North America. Methods Patients with vasculitis in North America were invited to complete an online survey through the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network in collaboration with the Vasculitis Foundation and the Relapsing Polychondritis Foundation. Questions focused on concerns and behaviors related to doctors' visits, tests, medication, and telehealth use. Factors affecting their concern and health-related behaviors were determined. Results Data from 662 patients were included: 90% of patients were White, 78% were women, 83% expressed moderate or high levels of concern about COVID-19, and 87% reported that their vasculitis moderately or extremely affected their level of concern. Older age, female sex, lung disease, and immunosuppression were associated with greater concern. Doctors' visits, laboratory tests, and other tests were avoided by 66%, 46%, and 40% of patients, respectively. Younger age, urban location, higher income, higher concern levels, and prednisone use (>10 mg/day) were associated with greater likelihood of avoiding visits or tests. Ten percent of patients on immunosuppressive therapy stopped their medication. Twenty-nine percent patients on rituximab avoided an infusion. Forty-four percent of patients had telehealth visits; more visits were reported for younger patients, for patients on glucocorticoids, and in Canada versus the United States. Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with vasculitis have high levels of concern and exhibit potentially harmful health-related behaviors. Health care use varies across different demographic groups and geographic regions. Specific strategies are warranted to facilitate engagement of these patients with the health care system during the pandemic.

Interstitial lung disease is a known complication of rheumatoid arthritis, with a lifetime risk of developing the disease in any individual of 7·7%. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pirfenidone for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).TRAIL1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial done in 34 academic centres specialising in interstitial lung disease in four countries (the UK, the USA, Australia, and Canada). Adults aged 18-85 years were eligible for inclusion if they met the 2010 American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and had interstitial lung disease on a high-resolution CT scan imaging and, when available, lung biopsy. Exclusion criteria include smoking, clinical history of other known causes of interstitial lung disease, and coexistant clinically significant COPD or asthma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2403 mg oral pirfenidone (pirfenidone group) or placebo (placebo group) daily. The primary endpoint was the incidence of the composite endpoint of a decline from baseline in percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) of 10% or more or death during the 52-week treatment period assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Key secondary endpoints included change in absolute and FVC% over 52 weeks, the proportion of patients with a decline in FVC% of 10% or more, and the frequency of progression as defined by Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT) in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02808871.From May 15, 2017, to March 31, 2020, 231 patients were assessed for inclusion, of whom 123 patients were randomly assigned (63 [51%] to the pirfenidone group and 60 [49%] to the placebo group). The trial was stopped early (March 31, 2020) due to slow recruitment and the COVID-19 pandemic. The difference in the proportion of patients who met the composite primary endpoint (decline in FVC% from baseline of 10% or more or death) between the two groups was not significant (seven [11%] of 63 patients in the pirfenidone group vs nine [15%] of 60 patients in the placebo group; OR 0·67 [95% CI 0·22 to 2·03]; p=0·48). Compared with the placebo group, patients in the pirfenidone group had a slower rate of decline in lung function, measured by estimated annual change in absolute FVC (-66 vs -146; p=0·0082) and FVC% (-1·02 vs -3·21; p=0·0028). The groups were similar with regards to the decline in FVC% by 10% or more (five [8%] participants in the pirfenidone group vs seven [12%] in the placebo group; OR 0·52 [95% CI 0·14-1·90]; p=0·32) and the frequency of progression as defined by OMERACT (16 [25%] in the pirfenidone group vs 19 [32%] in the placebo group; OR 0·68 [0·30-1·54]; p=0·35). There was no significant difference in the rate of treatment-emergent serious adverse events between the two groups, and there were no treatment-related deaths.Due to early termination of the study and underpowering, the results should be interpreted with caution. Despite not meeting the composite primary endpoint, pirfenidone slowed the rate of decline of FVC over time in patients with RA-ILD. Safety in patients with RA-ILD was similar to that seen in other pirfenidone trials.Genentech.

PURPOSE: There is a critical need for genomic medicine research that reflects and benefits socioeconomically and ancestrally diverse populations. Disparities in research populations persist, however, highlighting that traditional study designs and materials may be insufficient or inaccessible to all groups. New approaches can be gained through collaborations with patient/community stakeholders. Although some benefits of stakeholder engagement are recognized, routine incorporation into design and implementation of genomics research has yet to be realized. METHODS: The NIH-funded Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium required stakeholder engagement as a dedicated project component. Each CSER project planned and carried out stakeholder engagement activities with differing goals and expected outcomes. Examples were curated from each project to highlight engagement strategies and outcomes throughout the research lifecycle from development through dissemination. RESULTS: Projects tailored strategies to individual study needs, logistical constraints, and other challenges. Lessons learned include starting early with engagement efforts across project stakeholder groups and planned flexibility to enable adaptations throughout the project lifecycle. CONCLUSION: Each CSER project utilized more than one approach to engage with relevant stakeholders, resulting in numerous adaptations and tremendous value-added throughout the full research lifecycle. Incorporation of community stakeholder insight improves the outcomes and relevance of genomic medicine research.

Little is known about satisfaction with different modes of telemedicine delivery. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient satisfaction with phone-only was noninferior to video visits.We conducted a parallel group, randomized (1:1), single-blind, noninferiority trial in multispecialty clinics at a tertiary academic medical center. Adults age ≥ 60 years or with Medicare/Medicaid insurance were eligible. Primary outcome was visit satisfaction rate (9 or 10 on a 0-10 satisfaction scale). Noninferiority was determined if satisfaction with phone-only (intervention) versus video visits (comparator) was no worse by a -15% prespecified noninferiority margin. We performed modified intent-to-treat (mITT) and per protocol analyses, after adjusting for age and insurance.200 participants, 43% Black, 68% women completed surveys. Visit satisfaction rates were high. In the mITT analysis, phone-only visits were noninferior by an adjusted difference of 3.2% (95% CI, -7.6% to 14%). In the per protocol analysis, phone-only were noninferior by an adjusted difference of -4.1% (95% CI, -14.8% to 6.6%). The proportion of participants who indicated they preferred the same type of telemedicine visit as their next clinic visit were similar (30.2% vs 27.9% video vs phone-only, p = 0.78) and a majority said their medical concerns were addressed and would recommend a telemedicine visit.Among a group of diverse, established older or underserved patients, the satisfaction rate for phone-only was noninferior to video visits. These findings could impact practice and policies governing telemedicine.

We aimed to assess trends in anxiety and interruptions in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use among patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate whether DMARD interruptions were associated with disease flares.ArthritisPower, the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network, and other patient organizations invited members to join a 52-week longitudinal study, with baseline surveys completed March 29 to June 30, 2020, with follow-up through May 2021. Logistic regression incorporating generalized estimating equations evaluated associations between interruptions in DMARD use and self-reported disease flares at the next survey, adjusting for demographic characteristics, medications, disease, and calendar time.Among 2,424 patients completing a median of 5 follow-up surveys, the mean age was 57 years, 87% were female, and the most common conditions were rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, and psoriatic arthritis. Average Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety T scores decreased from April 2020 (58.7) to May 2021 (53.7) (P 0.001 for trend). Interruptions in DMARD use decreased from April (11.2%) to December 2020 (7.5%) (P 0.001) but increased through May 2021 (14.0%) (P 0.001). Interruptions in DMARD use were associated with a significant increase in severe flares (rated ≥6 of 10) at the next survey (12.9% versus 8.0% [odds ratio (OR) 1.71 (95% confidence interval [95% CI 1.23, 2.36]) although not any flare (OR 1.18 [95% CI 0.89, 1.58])].Anxiety and interruptions in DMARD use initially decreased over time, but DMARD interruptions increased during 2021, possibly related to an increase in COVID-19 cases or vaccine availability. Interruptions in DMARD use were associated with increased rates of severe disease flares, highlighting the importance of avoiding unnecessary DMARD interruptions.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a sudden uptake of telemedicine in rheumatology. We analyzed the recent published literature on telemedicine for the diagnosis and management of inflammatory, non-inflammatory and/or autoimmune rheumatic diseases.We performed a registered systematic search (CRD42020202063) for interventional or observational studies published between August 2015 and January 2022. We included studies of telemedicine that reported outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, disease activity, quality of life) in ten or more people with rheumatic disease. Reviewers screened manuscripts, extracted data, and assessed bias.Of the 2,988 potentially eligible studies, 36 reports were included: 27 observational studies, 7 randomized clinical trials, and 2 controlled clinical trials. Studies focused on general rheumatology (n = 18), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 9), gout (n = 3), osteoarthritis (n = 2), unspecified inflammatory arthritis (n = 1), osteoporosis (n = 2), and systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 1). Patient satisfaction with telemedicine was the most common reported outcome (n = 23) with majority of studies demonstrating high levels of satisfaction. Among interventional studies, the effect of telemedicine on the primary outcomes varied, with most finding that telemedicine was as good as usual / in-person care for disease activity control, patient satisfaction, total societal costs, and other patient reported outcomes. Effectiveness and feasibility were high across studies, though most demonstrated a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not feasible given the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome instruments utilized.Although the number of studies to date is low, telemedicine may be an effective mode to deliver care for people with rheumatic diseases. Most studies demonstrated limitations due to study design and risk of bias. Randomized clinical studies are needed to determine best uses of telemedicine for the diagnosis and management of rheumatic conditions.

Objective To discuss the study design and data analysis for three-phase interrupted time series (ITS) studies to evaluate the impact of health policy, systems, or environmental interventions. Simulation methods are used to conduct power and sample size calculation for these studies. Methods We consider the design and analysis of three-phase ITS studies using a study funded by National Institutes of Health as an exemplar. The design and analysis of both one-arm and two-arm three-phase ITS studies are introduced. Results A simulation-based approach, with ready-to-use computer programs, was developed to determine the power for two types of three-phase ITS studies. Simulations were conducted to estimate the power of segmented autoregressive (AR) error models when autocorrelation ranged from -0.9 to 0.9 with various effect sizes. The power increased as the sample size or the effect size increased. The power to detect the same effect sizes varied largely, depending on testing level change, trend changes, or both. Conclusion This article provides a convenient tool for investigators to generate sample sizes to ensure sufficient statistical power when three-phase ITS study design is implemented.

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.

Many patients with gout flares treated in the Emergency Department (ED) often do not receive optimal continuity of care after an ED visit. Thus, developing methods to identify patients with gout flares in the ED and referring them to appropriate outpatient gout care is required. While Natural Language Processing (NLP) has been used to detect gout flares retrospectively, it is much more challenging to identify patients prospectively during an ED visit where documentation is usually minimal. We annotate a corpus of ED triage nurse chief complaint notes for the presence of gout flares and implement a simple algorithm for gout flare ED alerts. We show that the chief complaint alone has strong predictive power for gout flares. We make available a de-identified version of this corpus annotated for gout mentions, which is to our knowledge the first free text chief complaint clinical corpus available.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on community-based rheumatology care and the use of telehealth is unclear. We undertook this study to investigate the impact of the pandemic on rheumatology care delivery in a large community practice-based network.Using a community practice-based rheumatologist network, we examined trends in in-person versus telehealth visits versus canceled visits in 3 time periods: pre-COVID-19, COVID-19 transition (6 weeks beginning March 23, 2020), and post-COVID-19 transition (May-August). In the transition period, we compared patients who received in-person care versus telehealth visits versus those who cancelled all visits. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with canceled or telehealth visits.Pre-COVID-19, there were 7,075 visits/week among 60,002 unique rheumatology patients cared for by ~300 providers practicing in 92 offices. This number decreased substantially (24.6% reduction) during the COVID-19 transition period for in-person visits but rebounded to pre-COVID-19 levels during the post-COVID-19 transition. There were almost no telehealth visits pre-COVID-19, but telehealth increased substantially during the COVID-19 transition (41.4% of all follow-up visits) and slightly decreased during the post-COVID-19 transition (27.7% of visits). Older age, female sex, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, lower socioeconomic status, and rural residence were associated with a greater likelihood of canceling visits. Most factors were also associated with a lower likelihood of having telehealth versus in-office visits. Patients living further from the rheumatologists' office were more likely to use telehealth.COVID-19 led to large disruptions in rheumatology care; these disruptions were only partially offset by increases in telehealth use and disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities and patients with lower socioeconomic status. During the COVID-19 era, telehealth continues to be an important part of rheumatology practice, but disparities in access to care exist for some vulnerable groups.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic and incurable autoimmune disease characterized by chronic inflammation in synovial lining of joints. To identify the signaling pathways involved in RA, its disease activity, and treatment response, we adapted a systems immunology approach to simultaneously quantify 42 signaling nodes in 21 immune cell subsets (e.g., IFNα→p-STAT5 in B cells) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from 194 patients with longstanding RA (including 98 patients before and after treatment), and 41 healthy controls (HC). We found multiple differences between patients with RA compared to HC, predominantly in cytokine-induced Jak/STAT signaling in many immune cell subsets, suggesting pathways that may be associated with susceptibility to RA. We also found that high RA disease activity, compared to low disease activity, was associated with decreased (e.g., IFNα→p-STAT5, IL-10→p-STAT1) or increased (e.g., IL-6→STAT3) response to stimuli in multiple cell subsets. Finally, we compared signaling in patients with established, refractory RA before and six months after initiation of methotrexate (MTX) or TNF inhibitors (TNFi). We noted significant changes from pre-treatment to post-treatment in IFNα→p-STAT5 signaling and IL-10→p-STAT1 signaling in multiple cell subsets; these changes brought the aberrant RA signaling profiles toward those of HC. This large, comprehensive functional signaling pathway study provides novel insights into the pathogenesis of RA and shows the potential of quantification of cytokine-induced signaling as a biomarker of disease activity or treatment response.

ObjectiveTo assess concerns and healthcare-related behaviors of patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsAdults from the United States with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from the ArthritisPower Patient-Powered Research Network and CreakyJoints patient community completed surveys. Concerns and behaviors were compared among patients with different autoimmune conditions, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use, and geographic measures of urban status, income, education, and COVID-19 activity.ResultsAmong 1517 participants (925 RA, 299 PsA, 185 AS, 108 SLE), mean age was 55.1 years, 88.3% were female, and 89.5% were White. COVID-19 concerns were similar across the country and were higher in biologic users (P < 0.001). Avoidance of doctor’s office visits (56.6%) or laboratory testing (42.3%) and use of telehealth (29.5%) were more common in urban areas. Among participants receiving a DMARD without COVID-19 or other respiratory illness, 14.9% stopped a DMARD, with 78.7% of DMARD interruptions not recommended by a physician. DMARD stopping was more common in participants with lower socioeconomic status (SES) and in participants who avoided an office visit (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04–2.04) or reported lack of telehealth availability OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.25–4.08).ConclusionIn the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with RA, PsA, AS, and SLE frequently avoided office visits and laboratory testing. DMARD interruptions commonly occurred without the advice of a physician and were associated with SES, office visits, and telehealth availability, highlighting the need for adequate healthcare access and attention to vulnerable populations during the pandemic.

Objective Antirheumatic disease therapies have been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and its complications. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to describe the current evidence. Methods A search of published and preprint databases in all languages was performed. Included studies described one or more relevant clinical outcomes in five or more people who were infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 and were treated with antirheumatic disease therapy between 01/01/2019 and 05/29/2020. Pairs of reviewers screened articles and extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A meta‐analysis of effect sizes using the random‐effects models was performed when possible. Results The search identified 3,935 articles, of which 45 were included (4 randomized controlled trials, 29 cohort studies, and 12 case series). All studies evaluated hospitalized patients and 29 out of 45 had been published in a peer‐reviewed journal. In a meta‐analysis of three cohort studies with a low risk of bias, hydroxychloroquine use was not significantly associated with mortality (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83‐2.42). In a meta‐analysis of two cohort studies with some concerns/high risk of bias, anakinra use was associated with lower mortality (pooled HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1‐0.4). Evidence was inconclusive with regard to other antirheumatic disease therapies and the majority of other studies had a high risk of bias. Conclusion In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with benefit or harm with regard to COVID‐19 mortality. The evidence supporting the effect of other antirheumatic disease therapies in COVID‐19 is currently inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE To identify and prioritize patient- and rheumatologist-perceived barriers to achieving disease control. METHODS Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and rheumatologists from the Corrona registry were invited by e-mail to participate in nominal groups. Two separate lists of barriers were created, 1 from RA patient-only nominal groups and the other from rheumatologist-only nominal groups, and barriers were sorted into themes. Next, using an online survey, a random sample of RA patients from the Corrona registry were asked to rank their top 3 barriers to achieving disease control. RESULTS Four nominal groups totaling 37 RA patients identified patient barriers to achieving control of RA activity that were classified into 17 themes. Three nominal groups totaling 25 rheumatologists identified barriers that were classified into 11 themes. The financial aspects of RA care ranked first for both types of nominal groups, while medication risk aversion ranked second among the perceived barriers of the physician nominal group and third among those of the RA patient nominal group. Among the 450 RA patients surveyed, 77% considered RA a top health priority, and 51% reported being aware of the treat-to-target strategy for RA care; the 3 most important patient-perceived challenges to achieving disease control were RA prognosis uncertainty, medication risk aversion, and the financial/administrative burden associated with RA care. CONCLUSION There are common, potentially modifiable, patient- and rheumatologist-reported barriers to achieving RA disease control, including perceived medication risk aversion, suboptimal treatment adherence, and suboptimal patient-physician communication regarding the benefits of tight control of disease activity in RA. Addressing these obstacles may improve adherence to goal-directed RA care.

ObjectivesCOVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic diseases remain poorly understood. The aim was to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation status in people with rheumatic disease.MethodsCase series of individuals with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry: 24 March 2020 to 20 April 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs of hospitalisation. Age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic disease diagnosis, comorbidities and rheumatic disease medications taken immediately prior to infection were analysed.ResultsA total of 600 cases from 40 countries were included. Nearly half of the cases were hospitalised (277, 46%) and 55 (9%) died. In multivariable-adjusted models, prednisone dose ≥10 mg/day was associated with higher odds of hospitalisation (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.96). Use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) alone or in combination with biologics/Janus Kinase inhibitors was not associated with hospitalisation (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.17 and OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.46, respectively). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use was not associated with hospitalisation status (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF) use was associated with a reduced odds of hospitalisation (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.81), while no association with antimalarial use (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.57) was observed.ConclusionsWe found that glucocorticoid exposure of ≥10 mg/day is associated with a higher odds of hospitalisation and anti-TNF with a decreased odds of hospitalisation in patients with rheumatic disease. Neither exposure to DMARDs nor NSAIDs were associated with increased odds of hospitalisation.

Introduction:Implementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium.Methods:A key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing.Results:Identifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects.Conclusions:In summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to present the design, model, and data analysis of an interrupted time series (ITS) model applied to evaluate the impact of health policy, systems, or environmental interventions using count outcomes. Simulation methods were used to conduct power and sample size calculations for these studies. Methods: We proposed the models and analyses of ITS designs for count outcomes using the Strengthening Translational Research in Diverse Enrollment (STRIDE) study as an example. The models we used were observation-driven models, which bundle a lagged term on the conditional mean of the outcome for a time series of count outcomes. Results: A simulation-based approach with ready-to-use computer programs was developed to calculate the sample size and power of two types of ITS models, Poisson and negative binomial, for count outcomes. Simulations were conducted to estimate the power of segmented autoregressive (AR) error models when autocorrelation ranged from −0.9 to 0.9, with various effect sizes. The power to detect the same magnitude of parameters varied largely, depending on the testing level change, the trend change, or both. The relationships between power and sample size and the values of the parameters were different between the two models. Conclusion: This article provides a convenient tool to allow investigators to generate sample sizes that will ensure sufficient statistical power when the ITS study design of count outcomes is implemented. Keywords: Policy evaluation, Interrupted time series, Count outcomes, Segmented regression, Quasi-experimental design, Power, Sample size calculation

To meet current and expected future demand for genome sequencing in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), adjustments to traditional service delivery models are necessary. Effective programs for the training of non-genetics providers (NGPs) may address the known barriers to providing genetic services including limited genetics knowledge and lack of confidence. The SouthSeq project aims to use genome sequencing to make genomic diagnoses in the neonatal period and evaluate a scalable approach to delivering genome sequencing results to populations with limited access to genetics professionals. Thirty-three SouthSeq NGPs participated in a live, interactive training intervention and completed surveys before and after participation. Here, we describe the protocol for the provider training intervention utilized in the SouthSeq study and the associated impact on NGP knowledge and confidence in reviewing, interpreting, and using genome sequencing results. Participation in the live training intervention led to an increased level of confidence in critical skills needed for real-world implementation of genome sequencing. Providers reported a significant increase in confidence level in their ability to review, understand, and use genome sequencing result reports to guide patient care. Reported barriers to implementation of genome sequencing in a NICU setting included test cost, lack of insurance coverage, and turn around time. As implementation of genome sequencing in this setting progresses, effective education of NGPs is critical to provide access to high-quality and timely genomic medicine care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the perspectives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on electronic recording of between-visit disease activity and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and sharing this information with health care providers or peers. METHODS: Patients with RA were recruited to participate in focus groups from December 2014 to April 2015. The topic guide and analysis were based on Andersen and Newman’s framework. Sessions were audio recorded, transcribed, independently coded, and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients participated in seven focus groups. Their mean age was 51 (SD 13.1); 94% were female, 52% were African Americans, 11% were Hispanics, and 37% were Caucasians. Three themes emerged: 1) provider communication, 2) information seeking about RA, and 3) social and peer support. Participants expressed willingness to track disease activity data to share with health care providers electronically if providers would act on the information. Participants envisioned symptom tracking and information sharing as a mechanism to relay and obtain reliable information about RA. Participants were also interested in electronic communication between visits if it facilitated learning about symptom management and enhanced opportunities for social support among persons with RA. CONCLUSION: Patients with RA may be amenable to electronic collection and sharing of PRO-type data between clinical encounters if it facilitates communication with health care providers, and provides access to reliable information about RA. Providing patients with social support was important for enhancing PROs collection by helping them overcome barriers with using electronic devices and patients’ reservations about the value of this data.

Objective.The clinical utility of the multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) test for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management in routine care in the United States has not been thoroughly studied.Methods.Using 2011–2015 Medicare data, we linked each patient with RA to their MBDA test result. Initiation of a biologic or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in the 6 months following MBDA testing was described. Multivariable adjustment evaluated the likelihood of adding or switching biologic/JAK inhibitor, controlling for potential confounders. For patients with high MBDA scores who added a new RA therapy and were subsequently retested, lack of improvement in the MBDA score was evaluated as a predictor of future RA medication failure, defined by the necessity to change RA medications again.Results.Among 60,596 RA patients with MBDA testing, the proportion adding or switching biologics/JAK inhibitor among those not already taking a biologic/JAK inhibitor was 9.0% (low MBDA), 11.8% (moderate MBDA), and 19.7% (high MBDA, p < 0.0001). Similarly, among those already taking biologics/JAK inhibitor, the proportions were 5.2%, 8.3%, and 13.5% (p < 0.0001). After multivariable adjustment, referent to those with low disease MBDA scores, the likelihood of switching was 1.51-fold greater (95% CI 1.35–1.69) for patients with moderate MBDA scores, and 2.62 (2.26–3.05) for patients with high MBDA scores. Among those with high MBDA scores who subsequently added a biologic/JAK inhibitor and were retested, lack of improvement in the MBDA score category was associated with likelihood of future RA treatment failure (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.27–2.03).Conclusion.The MBDA score was associated with both biologic and JAK inhibitor medication addition/switching and subsequent treatment outcomes.