Identifying rheumatic disease patients at high risk and requiring shielding during the COVID-19 pandemic

Communication to promote and support physical distancing for COVID-19 prevention and control

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a rapid review undertaken in 2020 to identify relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control. The rapid review was published when little was known about transmission, treatment or future vaccination, and when physical distancing measures (isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, crowd avoidance, work and school measures) were the cornerstone of public health responses globally. This updated review includes more recent evidence to extend what we know about effective pandemic public health communication. This includes considerations of changes needed over time to maintain responsiveness to pandemic transmission waves, the (in)equities and variable needs of groups within communities due to the pandemic, and highlights again the critical role of effective communication as integral to the public health response.

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence on the question 'What are relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control?', our primary focus was communication approaches to promote and support acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

to explore and identify key elements of effective communication for physical distancing measures for different (diverse) populations and groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from inception, with searches for this update including the period 1 January 2020 to 18 August 2021. Systematic review and study repositories and grey literature sources were searched in August 2021 and guidelines identified for the eCOVID19 Recommendations Map were screened (November 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Guidelines or reviews focusing on communication (information, education, reminders, facilitating decision-making, skills acquisition, supporting behaviour change, support, involvement in decision-making) related to physical distancing measures for prevention and/or control of COVID-19 or selected other diseases (sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, Ebola virus disease (EVD) or tuberculosis (TB)) were included. New evidence was added to guidelines, reviews and primary studies included in the 2020 review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Methods were based on the original rapid review, using methods developed by McMaster University and informed by Cochrane rapid review guidance. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted by one author and checked by a second author. Synthesis of results was conducted using modified framework analysis, with themes from the original review used as an initial framework.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update includes 68 studies, with 17 guidelines and 20 reviews added to the original 31 studies. Synthesis identified six major themes, which can be used to inform policy and decision-making related to planning and implementing communication about a public health emergency and measures to protect the community. Theme 1: Strengthening public trust and countering misinformation: essential foundations for effective public health communication Recognising the key role of public trust is essential. Working to build and maintain trust over time underpins the success of public health communications and, therefore, the effectiveness of public health prevention measures. Theme 2: Two-way communication: involving communities to improve the dissemination, accessibility and acceptability of information Two-way communication (engagement) with the public is needed over the course of a public health emergency: at first, recognition of a health threat (despite uncertainties), and regularly as public health measures are introduced or adjusted. Engagement needs to be embedded at all stages of the response and inform tailoring of communications and implementation of public health measures over time. Theme 3: Development of and preparation for public communication: target audience, equity and tailoring Communication and information must be tailored to reach all groups within populations, and explicitly consider existing inequities and the needs of disadvantaged groups, including those who are underserved, vulnerable, from diverse cultural or language groups, or who have lower educational attainment. Awareness that implementing public health measures may magnify existing or emerging inequities is also needed in response planning, enactment and adjustment over time. Theme 4: Public communication features: content, timing and duration, delivery Public communication needs to be based on clear, consistent, actionable and timely (up-to-date) information about preventive measures, including the benefits (whether for individual, social groupings or wider society), harms (likewise) and rationale for use, and include information about supports available to help follow recommended measures. Communication needs to occur through multiple channels and/or formats to build public trust and reach more of the community. Theme 5: Supporting behaviour change at individual and population levels Supporting implementation of public health measures with practical supports and services (e.g. essential supplies, financial support) is critical. Information about available supports must be widely disseminated and well understood. Supports and communication related to them require flexibility and tailoring to explicitly consider community needs, including those of vulnerable groups. Proactively monitoring and countering stigma related to preventive measures (e.g. quarantine) is also necessary to support adherence. Theme 6: Fostering and sustaining receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication Efforts to foster and sustain public receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication are needed throughout a public health emergency. Trust, acceptance and behaviours change over time, and communication needs to be adaptive and responsive to these changing needs. Ongoing community engagement efforts should inform communication and public health response measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implications for practice Evidence highlights the critical role of communication throughout a public health emergency. Like any intervention, communication can be done well or poorly, but the consequences of poor communication during a pandemic may mean the difference between life and death. The approaches to effective communication identified in this review can be used by policymakers and decision-makers, working closely with communication teams, to plan, implement and adjust public communications over the course of a public health emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications for research Despite massive growth in research during the COVID-19 period, gaps in the evidence persist and require high-quality, meaningful research. This includes investigating the experiences of people at heightened COVID-19 risk, and identifying barriers to implementing public communication and protective health measures particular to lower- and middle-income countries, and how to overcome these.

Association between SYVN1 and SEL1 genetic polymorphisms and remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with TNF-α inhibitors: a machine learning approach

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a severe chronic inflammatory condition that affects joint synovium. Suppressor/enhancer of lin-12-like (SEL1L)-Synoviolin 1 (SYVN1)-mediated endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation (ERAD) is highly associated with RA development. Although targeting SEL1L-SYVN1-mediated ERAD can be beneficial, studies that evaluate the association between polymorphisms in their genes and remission from the disease in RA patients taking tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors have yet to be carried out. Hence, the purpose of this study was to investigate the association between SYVN1 and SEL1L polymorphisms and TNF-α inhibitor response using various machine learning models. A total of 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), including 5 SNPs in SYVN1 and 7 SNPs of SEL1L were investigated. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between genetic polymorphisms and response to treatment. Various machine learning methods were employed to evaluate factors associated with remission in patients receiving TNF-α inhibitors. After adjusting for covariates, we found that sulfasalazine and rs2025214 in SEL1L increase the remission rates by approximately 3.3 and 2.8 times, respectively (95% confidence intervals 1.126-9.695 and 1.074-7.358, respectively). Machine learning approaches showed acceptable prediction estimates for remission in RA patients receiving TNF-α inhibitors, with the area under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC) values ranging from 0.60 to 0.65. A polymorphism of the SEL1L gene (rs2025214) and sulfasalazine were found to be associated with treatment response in RA patients receiving TNF-α inhibitors. These preliminary data could be used to tailor treatment for RA patients using TNF-α inhibitors.

Perceptions of risk in people with inflammatory arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective

People with inflammatory arthritis have an increased incidence of serious illness and mortality, placing them at risk of poor outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study explored patients’ perceptions of risk from COVID-19 over a longitudinal period of the pandemic.

Methods

Fifteen adults with inflammatory arthritis attending a National Health Service rheumatology service each took part in three semi-structured telephone interviews conducted between 16 September 2020 and 29 July 2021. Interpretive phenomenological analysis was undertaken by two researchers and two public contributors.

Results

Four main themes relating to perceptions of risk from COVID-19 were identified: inflammatory arthritis; medications and co-morbidities; immediate social environment; health policy communication; and media influence. Participants recognized that having inflammatory arthritis increased their individual risk. Perceptions of risk and associated fear increased during the pandemic, influenced by family/friends who had had COVID-19 and health policy communications. The perceived constant use of negative messages led to many participants disengaging with the media. At the final interviews, when the vaccination programme was well established, participants continued to assess the risk and benefits of engaging in activities.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the breadth of factors that influenced perceptions of risk in people with an inflammatory arthritis. As health professionals, we have only a small sphere of influence over some of these factors, namely health-care communications. People with inflammatory arthritis appropriately knew that their condition increased their infection risk, but more could be done to consider how and to what extent we involve patients in explaining risk at times of crisis.

Technical factors can impact on remote consultations in rheumatology: results from a service evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, there have been changes in clinical practice to limit transmission, such as switching from face-to-face to remote consultations. We aimed to study the influence of technical factors on remote consultations in our experience during the pandemic. 12 clinicians completed data collection forms after consultations, recording the technology used (video vs phone); technical problems encountered; discharge or subsequent appointment status; and technical aspects of the consultation process using 0–10 numerical rating scales (NRS) (Time Adequate; Relevant History; Physical Exam; Management Plan; and Communication Quality). Data were collated on an MS Access 2016 database and transferred to SPSS version 25 for statistics. Of 285 forms valid for analysis, 48 (16.8%) had video consultations. Of 259 forms with technical problems data recorded, 48 (18.5%) had a technical problem. Video patients were significantly younger (mean 49.3 vs 61.3 years, p < 0.001), had higher scores on Physical Exam scale (mean 4.0 vs 2.6, p < 0.001), but had no significant difference on Management Plan scale (7.3 vs 7.2). Those with technical problems were more common among video consultations (33.3% vs 15.4%, p = 0.005), had lower scores on Time Adequate scale (7.7 vs 8.7, p < 0.001) and Communication Quality scale (7.1 vs 8.4, p < 0.001), but had no significant difference on Management Plan scale (7.3 vs 7.2). The strongest correlation of Management Plan scale was with Communication Quality scale (Rho = 0.64). Of the NRS, a 1-point reduction in scores on Management Plan scale was the strongest predictor of subsequent face-to-face appointment (Odds Ratio 1.88, 95% CI 1.58–2.24), and this remained an independent predictor in multivariate analysis (adjusted OR 1.90, 1.57–2.31). Having a technical problem was inversely associated with the outcome of a subsequent face-to-face appointment (OR 0.17, 0.04–0.74), and this remained significant after adjustment for Management Plan in multivariate analysis (adjusted OR 0.09, 0.12–0.54). Video patients were younger suggesting a preference for video amongst younger patients. Although technical problems were more common with video, having a video consultation or a technical problem had no significant impact on management plan. Scoring lower on the Management Plan scale was the strongest predictor of, and independently associated with, requesting a subsequent face-to-face appointment. The inverse relationship of technical problems with subsequent face-to-face appointment request will need validation in further studies.

Patients’ perspectives of telemedicine appointments for psoriatic arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic: results of a patient-driven pilot survey

Background

Over recent years the lack of patient involvement in the design, set-up and implementation of clinical research studies has been well recognised; as such there has been a drive within research communities to increase patient participation. Patient perspectives on telemedicine differ widely, with variation in whether patients feel remote consultations are beneficial. By means of a patient-driven survey, we aimed to formally evaluate patient perspectives on its benefits and pitfalls, focusing on patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

An e-survey was developed by two patient representatives on the BritPACT steering committee, with a view to determining unmet needs and the perceived impact on clinical care of virtual consultations amongst patients with PsA.

Results

128 patients responded to the e-survey. 109 patients rated the effectiveness of their telemedicine appointment and, of these, 18% felt their virtual consultation was very/extremely effective compared to an in-clinic consultation and 49% felt it was somewhat/equally as effective; furthermore, 48% (51/107) felt that such virtual consultations would be of benefit to them after the pandemic. 36% of respondents felt their virtual consultation was not as effective as an in-clinic review. Themes identified from open-ended questions included the lack of visual cues, lack of physical examination and effect on rapport and ease of open communication as the main pitfalls of virtual consultations. Patients with well-controlled symptoms appeared more satisfied with remote reviews compared to those with active disease, though on the whole respondents recognised the benefits, such as saving travel time and costs. Those who had an established relationship with their health professional appeared less concerned regarding virtual consultations though a recurring view was that newly diagnosed patients should have in-clinic appointments to build rapport and improve symptom control at an early stage.

Conclusions

Overall patients’ perspectives on virtual consultations varied widely though patients with well-controlled symptoms and those who had a previously established relationship with their healthcare professionals and well-controlled disease appeared more satisfied with remote reviews.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-021-00242-y.

COVID-19 Infection, Admission and Death Amongst People with Rare Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease in England. Results from the RECORDER Project

Objectives

To calculate the rates of COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-related death among people with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases (RAIRD) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England compared with the general population.

Methods

We used Hospital Episode Statistics to identify all people alive 01 March 2020 with ICD-10 codes for RAIRD from the whole population of England. We used linked national health records (demographic, death certificate, admissions and PCR testing data) to calculate rates of COVID-19 infection and death up to 31 July 2020. Our primary definition of COVID-19-related death was mention of COVID-19 on the death certificate. General population data from Public Health England and the Office for National Statistics were used for comparison. We also describe COVID-19-related hospital admissions and all-cause deaths.

Results

We identified a cohort of 168 680 people with RAIRD, of whom 1874 (1.11%) had a positive COVID-19 PCR test. The age-standardised infection rate was 1.54 (95% CI 1.50–1.59) times higher than in the general population. 713 (0.42%) people with RAIRD died with COVID-19 on their death certificate and the age-sex-standardised mortality rate for COVID-19-related death was 2.41 (2.30–2.53) times higher than in the general population. There was no evidence of an increase in deaths from other causes in the RAIRD population.

Conclusions

During the first wave of COVID-19 in England, people with RAIRD had a 54% increased risk of COVID-19 infection and more than twice the risk of COVID-19-related death compared with the general population. These increases were seen despite shielding policies.

Health-related quality of life, uncertainty and coping strategies in solid organ transplant recipients during shielding for the COVID-19 pandemic

Strict isolation of vulnerable individuals has been a strategy implemented by authorities to protect people from COVID‐19. Our objective was to investigate health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), uncertainty and coping behaviours in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients during the COVID‐19 pandemic. A cross‐sectional survey of adult SOT recipients undergoing follow‐up at our institution was performed. Perceived health status, uncertainty and coping strategies were assessed using the EQ‐5D‐5L, Short‐form Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale (SF‐MUIS) and Brief Cope, respectively. Interactions with COVID‐19 risk perception, access to health care, demographic and clinical variables were assessed. The survey was completed by 826 of 3839 (21.5%) invited participants. Overall, low levels of uncertainty in illness were reported, and acceptance was the major coping strategy (92%). Coping by acceptance, feeling protected, self‐perceived susceptibility to COVID‐19 were associated with lower levels of uncertainty. Health status index scores were significantly lower for those with mental health illness, compromised access to health care, a perceived high risk of severe COVID‐19 infection and higher levels of uncertainty. A history of mental health illness, risk perceptions, restricted healthcare access, uncertainty and coping strategies was associated with poorer HRQoL in SOT recipients during strict isolation. These findings may allow identification of strategies to improve HRQoL in SOT recipients during the pandemic.

The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch people with and without an inflammatory rheumatic disease

OBJECTIVES

To determine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with and without an inflammatory rheumatic disease and establish whether psychological flexibility buffers this impact.

METHODS

From online surveys in the general Dutch population in 2018 and during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, we analysed data of people with (index group, n = 239) and without (control group, n = 1821) an inflammatory rheumatic disease. Worry, stress, mental well-being (SF-36) and psychological flexibility levels were subjected to covariate-adjusted analyses of variance or linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as compared with the control group, the index group was more worried about getting infected with the virus (partial η2=0.098; medium effect) and more stressed (partial η2=0.040; small effect). However, as compared with data acquired in 2018, the level of mental well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic peak was not lower in both groups. Levels of psychological flexibility did not moderate associations of group or year with mental well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more worried and stressed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, their level of mental well-being was not reduced, which may have prevented us from finding a buffering effect of psychological flexibility. Overall, our results suggest that the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease is modest, which could imply that common education and health care will do for most patients.

Risk-mitigating behaviours in people with inflammatory skin and joint disease during the COVID-19 pandemic differ by treatment type: a cross-sectional patient survey

BACKGROUND

Registry data suggest that people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) receiving targeted systemic therapies have fewer adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes compared with patients receiving no systemic treatments.

OBJECTIVES

We used international patient survey data to explore the hypothesis that greater risk-mitigating behaviour in those receiving targeted therapies may account, at least in part, for this observation.

METHODS

Online surveys were completed by individuals with psoriasis (globally) or rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) (UK only) between 4 May and 7 September 2020. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between treatment type and risk-mitigating behaviour, adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics. We characterized international variation in a mixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Of 3720 participants (2869 psoriasis, 851 RMDs) from 74 countries, 2262 (60·8%) reported the most stringent risk-mitigating behaviour (classified here under the umbrella term 'shielding'). A greater proportion of those receiving targeted therapies (biologics and Janus Kinase inhibitors) reported shielding compared with those receiving no systemic therapy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·35-1·97]. The association between targeted therapy and shielding was preserved when standard systemic therapy was used as the reference group (OR 1·39, 95% CI 1·23-1·56). Shielding was associated with established risk factors for severe COVID-19 [male sex (OR 1·14, 95% CI 1·05-1·24), obesity (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·23-1·54), comorbidity burden (OR 1·43, 95% CI 1·15-1·78)], a primary indication of RMDs (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·27-1·48) and a positive anxiety or depression screen (OR 1·57, 95% CI 1·36-1·80). Modest differences in the proportion shielding were observed across nations.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater risk-mitigating behaviour among people with IMIDs receiving targeted therapies may contribute to the reported lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. The behaviour variation across treatment groups, IMIDs and nations reinforces the need for clear evidence-based patient communication on risk-mitigation strategies and may help inform updated public health guidelines as the pandemic continues.

Attitudes of patients with spondylarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis regarding biological treatment during COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-center, phone-based, cross-sectional study

Objectives

In this study, we aimed to investigate the medical treatment attitudes of patients with spondylarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were using biological drugs during the novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Patients and methods

In this multi-center, cross-sectional study, a total of 277 patients (178 males, 99 females; median age: 45 years; range, 20 to 77 years) who were using biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for rheumatic diseases and were reached by phone between June 1st, 2020 and June 30th, 2020 were included. Demographic characteristics, working status, type of the rheumatic disease, comorbidities, smoking habits, and type of the bDMARDs were recorded. Disease activity was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The patients were asked whether they continued the treatment plan, as it was before or changed and, if changed, how they changed the plan and what happened after the change.

Results

Of the patients, 229 had spondylarthritis and 48 had RA. A total of 36.1% of the patients were smokers, and the most common comorbidity was hypertension (17.3%). Totally, 5.8% of the patients had a history of contact with a COVID-19 positive person. Only three (1.1%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection and none of them died. Of the patients, 64.3% continued their treatment, while 35.7% adopted various changes. Most patients made the decision about the treatment plan on their own (n=160, 57.8%), while 38.3% of them consulted their physicians and 13.9% of them consulted any health staff. The only significant parameter for changing the drug course was receiving intravenous bDMARDs (by infusion at hospital) (p=0.001). These patients had also a higher disease activity as measured by VAS, compared to the patients receiving non-infusion therapy (p=0.021). As a result of these changes, severity of the symptoms increased in 91 (32.9%) patients. Disruption of regular biological treatment and prior infusion therapy more likely worsened the complaints (p<0.001 and p=0.024, respectively).

Conclusion

Intravenous bDMARD therapy seems to be the main factor affecting the continuity of the treatment in the pandemic period. During the pandemic period, alternative treatment options should be considered other than infusion therapy not to interrupt the treatment of these patients.

Health information technology and digital innovation for national learning health and care systems

Health information technology can support the development of national learning health and care systems, which can be defined as health and care systems that continuously use data-enabled infrastructure to support policy and planning, public health, and personalisation of care. The COVID-19 pandemic has offered an opportunity to assess how well equipped the UK is to leverage health information technology and apply the principles of a national learning health and care system in response to a major public health shock. With the experience acquired during the pandemic, each country within the UK should now re-evaluate their digital health and care strategies. After leaving the EU, UK countries now need to decide to what extent they wish to engage with European efforts to promote interoperability between electronic health records. Major priorities for strengthening health information technology in the UK include achieving the optimal balance between top-down and bottom-up implementation, improving usability and interoperability, developing capacity for handling, processing, and analysing data, addressing privacy and security concerns, and encouraging digital inclusivity. Current and future opportunities include integrating electronic health records across health and care providers, investing in health data science research, generating real-world data, developing artificial intelligence and robotics, and facilitating public-private partnerships. Many ethical challenges and unintended consequences of implementation of health information technology exist. To address these, there is a need to develop regulatory frameworks for the development, management, and procurement of artificial intelligence and health information technology systems, create public-private partnerships, and ethically and safely apply artificial intelligence in the National Health Service.

Updated APLAR consensus statements on care for patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic

AIM

To update previous guidance of the Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR) on the management of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

Research questions were formulated focusing on diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with RMD within the context of the pandemic, including the management of RMD in patients who developed COVID-19. MEDLINE was searched for eligible studies to address the questions, and the APLAR COVID-19 task force convened 2 meetings through video conferencing to discuss its findings and integrate best available evidence with expert opinion. Consensus statements were finalized using the modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

Agreement was obtained around key aspects of screening for or diagnosis of COVID-19; management of patients with RMD without confirmed COVID-19; and management of patients with RMD with confirmed COVID-19. The task force achieved consensus on 25 statements covering the potential risk of acquiring COVID-19 in RMD patients, advice on RMD medication adjustment and continuation, the roles of telemedicine and vaccination, and the impact of the pandemic on quality of life and on treatment adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence primarily from descriptive research supported new recommendations for aspects of RMD care not covered in the previous document, particularly with regard to risk factors for complicated COVID-19 in RMD patients, modifications to RMD treatment regimens in the context of the pandemic, and COVID-19 vaccination in patients with RMD.

Inflammatory arthritis in patients with COVID-19

Patients with inflammatory arthritis represent a possible high-risk group to COVID-19 due to their immunosuppressive regimen designed to maintain low disease activity. Thus, substantial effort has been put forth to understand the impact of COVID-19 on these patients. Patients with rheumatic diseases as a whole do not appear to be more susceptible to acquiring COVID-19. Furthermore, immunosuppression generally did not increase the likelihood of developing severe COVID-19, with the important exception of medium and high-dose glucocorticoid use. In addition, a small number of COVID-19 patients have developed new inflammatory arthritis; whether this represents an unmasking of previous subclinical disease or a bone fide virus-induced arthritis is unclear. Nevertheless, it appears that inflammatory arthritis patients currently on immunosuppression should continue their medication to prevent future flares and limit glucocorticoid usage. While this continues to be a rapidly evolving field, these data are reassuring to both patients with and providers treating inflammatory arthritides.

Risk of death among people with rare autoimmune diseases compared with the general population in England during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

To quantify the risk of death among people with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases (RAIRD) during the UK 2020 COVID-19 pandemic compared with the general population, and compared with their pre-COVID risk.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study in Hospital Episode Statistics for England 2003 onwards, and linked data from the NHS Personal Demographics Service. We used ONS published data for general population mortality rates.

Results

We included 168 691 people with a recorded diagnosis of RAIRD alive on 01/03/2020. Their median age was 61.7 (IQR 41.5–75.4) years, and 118 379 (70.2%) were female. Our case ascertainment methods had a positive predictive value of 85%. 1,815 (1.1%) participants died during March and April 2020. The age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR) among people with RAIRD (3669.3, 95% CI 3500.4–3838.1 per 100 000 person-years) was 1.44 (95% CI 1.42–1.45) times higher than the average ASMR during the same months of the previous 5 years, whereas in the general population of England it was 1.38 times higher. Age-specific mortality rates in people with RAIRD compared with the pre-COVID rates were higher from the age of 35 upwards, whereas in the general population the increased risk began from age 55 upwards. Women had a greater increase in mortality rates during COVID-19 compared with men.

Conclusion

The risk of all-cause death is more prominently raised during COVID-19 among people with RAIRD than among the general population. We urgently need to quantify how much risk is due to COVID-19 infection and how much is due to disruption to healthcare services.

Estimation of the burden of shielding among a cross-section of patients attending rheumatology clinics with SLE-data from the BSR audit of systemic lupus erythematosus

Objectives

We aimed to estimate what proportion of people with SLE attending UK rheumatology clinics would be categorized as being at high risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and therefore asked to shield, and explore what implications this has for rheumatology clinical practice.

Methods

We used data from the British Society for Rheumatology multicentre audit of SLE, which included a large, representative cross-sectional sample of patients attending UK Rheumatology clinics with SLE. We calculated who would receive shielding advice using the British Society for Rheumatology’s risk stratification guidance and accompanying scoring grid, and assessed whether ethnicity and history of nephritis were over-represented in the shielding group.

Results

The audit included 1003 patients from 51 centres across all 4 nations of the UK. Overall 344 (34.3%) patients had a shielding score ≥3 and would have been advised to shield. People with previous or current LN were 2.6 (1.9–3.4) times more likely to be in the shielding group than people with no previous LN (P < 0.001). Ethnicity was not evenly distributed between the groups (chi-squared P < 0.001). Compared with White people, people of Black ethnicity were 1.9 (1.3–2.8) and Asian 1.9 (1.3–2.7) times more likely to be in the shielding group. Increased risk persisted after controlling for LN.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates the large number of people with SLE who are likely to be shielding. Implications for clinical practice include considering communication across language and cultural differences, and ways to conduct renal assessment including urinalysis, during telephone and video consultations for patients who are shielding.

Systematic review of immunosuppressant guidelines in the COVID-19 pandemic

Aims:

Individuals taking immunosuppressants are at increased susceptibility to viral infections in general. However, due to the novel nature of the COVID-19, there is a lack of evidence about the specific risks of the disease in this patient group. This systematic review aims to summarize the current international clinical guidelines to highlight areas where research is needed through critical appraisal of the evidence base of these guidelines.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines about the usage of immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and the websites of relevant professional bodies were searched for English language guidelines that were published or updated between March 2020 and May 2020 in this area. We assessed the quality and consistency of guidelines. The evidence base underpinning these guidelines was critically appraised using GRADE criteria.

Results:

Twenty-three guidelines were included. Most guidelines (n = 15, 65.2%) informed and updated evidence based on expert opinion. The methodological quality of the guidelines varied, ranging from ‘very low’ to ‘moderate’. Guidelines consistently recommended that high-risk patients, including those who are taking high doses of steroids for more than a month, or a combination of two or more immunosuppressants, should be shielding during the outbreak. Most guidelines stated that steroids usage should not be stopped abruptly and advised on individualized risk–benefit analysis considering the risk of the effect of COVID-19 infection and the relapse of the autoimmune condition in patients.

Discussion:

Clinical practice guidelines on taking immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 outbreak vary in quality. The level of evidence informing the available guidelines was generally low. Given the novel nature of COVID-19, the guidelines draw on existing knowledge and data, refer to the use of immunosuppressants and risks of serious infections of other aetiologies and have extrapolated these to form their evidence base.

COVID-19 and shielding: experiences of UK patients with lupus and related diseases

OBJECTIVE

The shielding guidance in the UK for the clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) commenced on 23 March 2020 in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of the pandemic and shielding on patients with lupus and related systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs).

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods cohort study (n = 111) including pre-lockdown baseline surveys (March 2020), follow-up surveys (June 2020) and in-depth interviews during July 2020 (n = 25).

RESULTS

Most participants had a high level of anxiety regarding their mortality risk from COVID-19 and supported the concept of shielding. Shielding allocations and communications were perceived as inconsistently applied and delivered. More than half of those not classified as CEV reported feeling abandoned, at increased risk and with no support. Shielding communications increased feelings of being 'cared about', but also increased fear, and the 'vulnerable' labelling was perceived by some to damage social and self-identity. More than 80% of those classified as CEV stated that the classification and subsequent communications had changed their social-mixing behaviour. Despite many negative impacts of COVID-19 and shielding/lockdown being identified, including isolation, fear and reduced medical care, the quantitative data during the pandemic showed increases in most measures of wellbeing (which was low at both time points) from pre-lockdown, including reductions in the impact of fatigue and pain (P-values < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Shielding classifications and communications were, in general, viewed positively, although they were perceived as inconsistently delivered and anxiety-provoking by some participants. More frequent positively framed communication and wellbeing support could benefit all SARD patients. Slower-paced lockdown lifestyles might confer health/wellbeing benefits for some people with chronic diseases.

SARS-CoV-2 infections in children and young people

Though recent reports link SARS-CoV-2 infections with hyper-inflammatory states in children, most children experience no/mild symptoms, and hospitalization and mortality rates are low in the age group. As symptoms are usually mild and seroconversion occurs at low frequencies, it remains unclear whether children significantly contribute to community transmission. Several hypotheses try to explain age-related differences in disease presentation and severity. Possible reasons for milder presentations in children as compared to adults include frequent contact to seasonal coronaviruses, presence of cross-reactive antibodies, and/or co-clearance with other viruses. Increased expression of ACE2 in young people may facilitate virus infection, while limiting inflammation and reducing the risk of severe disease. Further potential factors include recent vaccinations and a more diverse memory T cell repertoire. This manuscript reviews age-related host factors that may protect children from COVID-19 and complications associated, and addresses the confusion around seropositivity and immunity.

Managing rheumatoid arthritis during COVID-19

The outbreak of coronavirus in the world has led to an uncertainty about treatment of patients with autoimmune disorders because of their weakened immune system coupled with immunosuppressive agents they take which predisposes them to a host of infections. Data on COVID-19 patients with underlying rheumatological diseases has been emerging mostly in the form of small case series and one global registry. From these data, it seems like our patients, although immunosuppressed, are not particularly susceptible to the coronavirus infection and if infected, do not have significantly worse outcomes than other patients. In fact, drugs like hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, and tocilizumab have been studied for treatment of COVID-19. However, this is only preliminary data, and since a few parts of the world are still grappling with the pandemic at its peak, we need to be equipped on how to protect and manage our immunosuppressed patients. Published evidence to guide treatment decisions are lacking and doubts regarding continuation and initiation of immunosuppressants remain. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common immune-mediated disorder in COVID-19 patients, and in this review, we discuss how the commonly used drugs in RA alter the patients' susceptibility to this infection. The review also summarizes the recommendations from the major bodies on how to manage this disease in these times. Key Points • Patients on immunosuppressive medications are not found to be at a greatly increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection. • Patients doing well on a stable dose of steroid and/or Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) should be allowed to continue the same unless they get infected in which case, temporary stoppage of methotrexate and leflunomide may be considered. • Initiation of high-dose steroids, DMARDs, and biologics, if the clinical situation demands so, can be done. • Maintenance biologic therapy for stable patients should be individualized by the treating physician.

Evaluation of a patient self-stratification methodology to identify those in need of shielding during COVID-19

The logistical challenges of rapidly and accurately identifying those patients who needed to shield during the COVID-19 pandemic were unprecedented. We report our experiences of meeting this challenge for >9,000 patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease at our centre, incorporating an element of guided patient self-stratification. Our results indicate that patients are able to stratify their own risk accurately using the BSR COVID-19 risk stratification guidance.

Systemic autoimmune diseases, anti-rheumatic therapies, COVID-19 infection risk and patient outcomes

As of June 10th 2020 about 7.2 million individuals have tested positive for, and more than 410,000 have died due to COVID-19. In this review we outline the pathophysiology that underpins the potential use of anti-rheumatic therapies for severe COVID-19 infection and summarize the current evidence regarding the risk and outcome of COVID-19 in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases. Thus far there is no convincing evidence that any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (conventional synthetic, biologic or targeted synthetic) including hydroxychloroquine, may protect against severe COVID-19 infection; answers about their possible usefulness in the management of the cytokine storm associated with severe COVID-9 infection will only arise from ongoing randomized controlled trials. Evidence on COVID-19 risk and outcome in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases is extremely limited; thus, any conclusions would be unsafe and should be seen with great caution. At present, the risk and severity (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission and death) of COVID-19 infection in people with autoimmune diseases do not appear particularly dissimilar to the general population, with the possible exception of hospitalization in patients exposed to high glucocorticoid doses. At this stage it is impossible to draw any conclusions for differences in COVID-19 risk and outcome between different autoimmune diseases and between the various immunomodulatory therapies used for them. More research in the field is obviously required, including as a minimum careful and systematic epidemiology and appropriately controlled clinical trials.