Kim, Alfred H.J.

Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes during the implementation of a self-administered patient decision-aid (PtDA) for lupus. Methods We provided an effective computerized lupus PtDA in 15 rheumatology outpatient clinics 2019–2024 (including the COVID pandemic). We undertook Organizational Readiness to Implement Change Surveys (ORICs) and Team Learning and Psychological Safety Surveys (TLPSSs) at baseline. The primary study outcome objective measure, percent penetration/reach, was defined as the number of patients who viewed the lupus PtDA at the end of the study, divided by the total number of eligible patients (times 100). We used validated clinical personnel surveys to examine the perceived lupus PtDA appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, success, and permanence, at 4 months, 12 months and 24 months post-PtDA implementation. Results Among the sites, the clinical personnels’ (n = 184) baseline ORIC commitment and efficacy scores (a 0–5 scale, higher = better) ranged from 3.5 to 4.2, and 3.4 to 4.4, respectively; the TLPSS scores (a 0–7 scale, higher = better) were 3.9–5.5 for internal learning, 3.7–5.6 for external learning, and 4.3–5.5 for psychological safety. The penetration (primary outcome) among 15 geographically diverse US rheumatology clinics ranged from 3% to 44%. We found that the total number of providers in the clinic was positively associated with higher penetration. Clinical personnel–perceived lupus PtDA outcomes were optimal at 4 months (all scale scores ranged from 1 to 5, higher = better): (i) appropriateness, 3.43 (s.d. 0.86); (ii) acceptability, 3.53 (s.d. 0.83); (iii) feasibility, 3.44 (s.d. 0.71); (iv) success, 3.41 (s.d. 0.73); and (v) permanence, 3.22 (s.d. 0.74). Conclusion We implemented a lupus PtDA with varied success rates during the COVID pandemic; more providers were associated with higher clinic penetration. Clinical personnel perceived high lupus PtDA appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, success, and permanence that persisted up to 24 months. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03735238.

ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionPatients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and an increased mortality rate.

ObjectiveAntirheumatic 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.MethodsA search of published and preprint databases in all languages was performed. Included studies described ≥1 relevant clinical outcome for ≥5 patients who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and were treated with antirheumatic disease therapy between January 1, 2019 and May 29, 2020. Pairs of reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A meta‐analysis of effect sizes using random‐effects models was performed when possible.ResultsThe 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 of the 45 studies had been published in a peer‐reviewed journal. In a meta‐analysis of 3 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 (95% CI) 0.83, 2.42]). In a meta‐analysis of 2 cohort studies with some concerns/higher risk of bias, anakinra use was associated with lower mortality (pooled HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.12, 0.52]). Evidence was inconclusive with regard to other antirheumatic disease therapies, and the majority of other studies had a high risk of bias.ConclusionIn this systematic review and meta‐analysis, hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with benefit or harm regarding COVID‐19 mortality. The evidence supporting the effect of other antirheumatic disease therapies in COVID‐19 is currently inconclusive.