Background To determine the impact of health care interruption (HCI), on clinical status of the patients reincorporated to an outpatient clinic for rheumatic diseases (OCDIR), from a tertiary care level center who was temporally switched to a dedicated COVID-19 hospital, and to provide a bioethical analysis. Methods From March to June 2020, the OCDIR was closed; since June, it is limited to evaluate 25% of the ongoing outpatients. This cross-sectional study surveyed 670 consecutive rheumatic outpatients between June 24th and October 31th, concomitant to the assessment of the rheumatic disease clinical status by the attendant rheumatologist, according to disease activity level, clinical deterioration and adequate/inadequate control. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified factors associated to HCI and to clinical deterioration. Results Patients were middle-aged females (86.7%), with median disease duration of 10 years, comorbidity (38.5%) and 138 patients (20.6%) had discontinued treatment. Primary diagnoses were SLE and RA, in 285 (42.5%) and 223 (33.3%) patients, respectively. There were 344 patients (51.3%) with HCI. Non-RA diagnosis (OR: 2.21, 95%CI: 1.5–3.13), comorbidity (OR: 1.7, 95%CI: 1.22–2.37), patient’s need for rheumatic care during HCI (OR: 3.2, 95%CI: 2.06–4.97) and adequate control of the rheumatic disease (OR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.45–0.9) were independently associated to HCI. There were 160 patients (23.8%) with clinical deterioration and associated factors were disease duration, substantial disease activity previous HCI, patients need for rheumatic care and treatment discontinuation. Conclusions HCI during COVID-19 pandemic impacted course of rheumatic diseases and need to be considered in the bioethical analysis of virus containment measures.

Background Previous models that assess quality-of-Life (QoL) in patients with rheumatic diseases have a strong biomedical focus. We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 related-health care interruption (HCI) on the physical, psychological, social relationships and environment QoL-dimensions, and explored factors associated with QoL when patients were reincorporated to the outpatient clinic, and after six-month follow-up. Patients and methods Study phase-1 consisted of a COVID-19 survey administered from June 24th-October 31st 2020, to outpatients with rheumatic diseases who had face-to-face consultation at outpatient clinic reopening. Study phase-2 consisted of 3 consecutive assessments of patient´s QoL (WHOQOL-BREF), disease activity/severity (RAPID-3), and psychological comorbidity/trauma (DASS-21 and IES-R) to patients from phase-1 randomly selected. Sociodemographic, disease and treatment-related information, and comorbidities were obtained. Multiple linear regression analysis identified factors associated with the score assigned to each WHOQOL-BREF dimension. Results Patients included (670 for phase-1 and 276 for phase-2), had primarily SLE and RA (44.2% and 34.1%, respectively), and all the dimensions of their WHOQOL-BREF were affected. There were 145 patients (52.5%) who referred HCI, and they had significantly lower dimensions scores (but the environment dimension score). Psycho-emotional factors (primarily feeling confused, depression and anxiety), sociodemographic factors (age, COVID-19 negative economic impact, years of scholarship, HCI and having a job), and biomedical factors (RAPID-3 score and corticosteroid use) were associated with baseline QoL dimensions scores. Psycho-emotional factors showed the strongest magnitude on dimensions scores. Most consistent predictor of six-month follow-up QoL dimensions scores was each corresponding baseline dimension score, while social determinants (years of scholarship and having a job), emotional factors (feeling bored), and biomedical aspects (RAPID 3) had an additional impact. Conclusions HCI impacted the majority of patient´s QoL dimensions. Psycho-emotional, sociodemographic and biomedical factors were consistently associated with QoL dimensions scores, and these consistently predicted the QoL trajectory.

No abstract

Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) impacts sexual and reproductive health (SRH), which is a prominent component of a patient´s quality of life and highly influenced by the cultural background. The aim of the study was to explore the interest of Mexican outpatients with RA in SRH and to examine patient view on SRH. Methods This cross-sectional study surveyed 303 consecutive outpatients with RA on their perceptions of SRH importance, SRH satisfaction, access to SRH information, preferences regarding SRH communication with healthcare professionals, and understanding of SRH (qualitative open-ended descriptions). Descriptive statistics and inferential analysis were used. Patient knowledge of each dimension of SRH was rated based on pre-specified criteria. Two assessors assigned ten major themes to each patient´s description of both dimensions of SRH. Results Patients perceived their SRH as an important component of their general health and wished to address the topic, although few had access to such communication. Female patients assigned lesser importance to SRH, showed lesser degree of satisfaction with SRH, and expressed preference for a truthful physician. Age showed a linear association with individual survey responses, except for satisfaction with reproductive health dimension. There was a linear association between increased age and decreased years of formal education with a lower level of SRH knowledge. Ten major themes emerged for each of the two dimensions of the SRH construct, although most individual descriptions were assigned to one or two major themes. Conclusions Further education and assessment of SRH in Mexican patients with RA is warranted.

Objective Patients and physicians can naturally adopt hybrid healthcare models that combine face-to-face consultations with telemedicine. The study's objective was to compare the impact of two healthcare interventions, hybrid care modality and face-to-face consultation, on the patient-reported outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis patients, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Consecutive outpatients reincorporated to a clinic previously in lockdown were invited to a non-inferiority, randomized study (October 2020–-May 2022). Patients were randomized to 6 months of face-to-face consultation or hybrid care modality (intervention period-1) and then the converse modality (intervention period-2). The primary outcome was disease activity/severity behavior (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3). Additional patient-reported outcomes were disability (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index), quality-of-life (World Health Organization quality of life questionnaire-brief version), adherence and satisfaction with medical care, and treatment recommendation. Sample size calculation established 55 patients/healthcare interventions. Results There were 138 patients invited to participate, 130 agreed and 121 completed their study participation. Sixty-one and 60 patients respectively, received face-to-face consultation and hybrid care modality over intervention period-1. Patients were primarily middle-aged females (90.1%), with (median, IQR) 12 (9–16) years of education, long-standing disease, working (62.8%), receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (96.7%), and corticosteroids (61.2%). Patients had low disease activity (median Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3: 2.7) and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score that translated into the absence of disability, while quality of life was compromised. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients assigned to each healthcare intervention. Differences in Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 behavior were below the non-inferiority margin. Results considered the order in which patients received the intervention and baselines scores, and extended to the patient-reported outcomes left. Conclusions Hybrid care modality was non-inferior to in-person consultations in achieving patient-reported outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in rheumatoid arthritis patients.