No abstract

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

Objective To report the clinical experience with anakinra in preventing mechanical ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), symptoms of cytokine storm syndrome, and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Methods To be included in this retrospective case series, patients must have had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV‐2), fever, ferritin levels >1,000 ng/ml with 1 additional laboratory marker of hyperinflammation, and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure was defined as requiring 15 liters of supplemental oxygen via a nonrebreather mask combined with 6‐liter nasal cannula or use of ≥95% oxygen by high‐flow nasal cannula. We excluded patients in whom there was suspicion of bacterial infection or who were receiving immunosuppressants. Subcutaneous anakinra was initiated at 100 mg every 6 hours and gradually tapered off completely. The primary outcome was the prevention of mechanical ventilation. Results Of the 14 patients who met the criteria, 11 patients received anakinra for a maximum of 19 days. Seven of the patients who started anakinra treatment ≤36 hours after onset of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure did not require mechanical ventilation, and all were discharged home. Four patients who started anakinra ≥4 days after onset of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure required mechanical ventilation. Of those, 3 patients were extubated (2 discharged home and 1 remained hospitalized), and 1 died. All 3 patients who met the criteria but did not receive anakinra required mechanical ventilation. Two patients were extubated (1 discharged home and 1 remained hospitalized), and 1 remained on mechanical ventilation. Conclusion Our data suggest that anakinra could be beneficial in treating COVID‐19 patients with evidence of cytokine storm syndrome when initiated early after onset of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Our patient selection and treatment approach should be considered for investigation in a clinical trial to determine the safety and efficacy of anakinra in treating patients with COVID‐19 and symptoms of cytokine storm syndrome.

The rates of incident osteoporotic fractures seem to be stabilizing; however, fragility fractures are still associated with considerable disability, costs and an increased risk of mortality, which is particularly the case for fractures of the hip and vertebra. Mortality is usually highest during the first year after fracture; however, a notably increased mortality risk might persist for several years after the event. In addition to its efficacy in the prevention of new and recurrent osteoporotic fractures, medical treatment has been associated with improved survival after osteoporotic fractures. Observational studies and randomized controlled clinical trials have reported increased survival in patients with a fracture who are treated with bisphosphonates. Rates of medical treatment in patients with osteoporosis remain low, and although the rationale for the putative increase in survival is unclear, this emerging evidence might help further justify the use of medical treatment after fracture. However, further work is needed before medical therapy for mortality prevention in patients with osteoporotic fractures is accepted.

Despite being the most common type of inflammatory arthritis, gout is often poorly managed. Except for febuxostat and pegloticase, research in new therapeutic agents for the management of hyperuricemia in gout remained insufficient for several decades. With emerging evidence of possible roles of hyperuricemia in cardiometabolic comorbidities, as well as more convincing evidence regarding poor outcomes (e.g. disability, recurrent hospital admissions) in patients with uncontrolled gout, several agents are current under development. Increasing knowledge regarding renal urate transporters has resulted in the development of new generation uricosurics such as lesinurad and arhalofenate. This review aims at discussing current therapeutic strategies for gout, as well as their limitations and the possible role of emerging agents in the chronic management of hyperuricemia in gout. Drugs in phases I and II of development will be discussed, along with new agents and therapeutic classes, such as purine nucleoside phosphorylase inhibitors and dual-action drugs. These new developments are encouraging, and will hopefully contribute to a more adequate management of hyperuricemia in gout.

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

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

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.