BackgroundMusculoskeletal manifestations of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have been described since the outset of the global HIV epidemic. Articular syndromes that have been described in association with HIV include HIV-associated arthropathy, seronegative spondyloarthropathies (SPA) (reactive arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and undifferentiated SPA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and painful articular syndrome.MethodsWe carried out a computer-assisted search of PubMed for the medical literature from January 1981 to January 2015 using the keywords HIV, acquired immune-deficiency syndrome, rheumatic manifestations, arthritis, spondyloarthropathy, anti-TNF and disease modifying antirheumatic drugs. Only English language literature was included and only studies involving adult human subjects were assessed.ResultsThere are challenges in the management of inflammatory arthritis in patients who are HIV-positive, including difficulties in the assessment of disease activity and limited information on the safety of immunosuppressive drugs in these individuals.ConclusionsThis review focuses on the clinical characteristics of the inflammatory articular syndromes that have been described in association with HIV infection and discusses the therapeutic options for these patients.

Twitter James Bateman @jamesbateman Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the local patient participation groups and the Hibbs Lupus Trust for their input into the study and piloting the SMS technology.

Objectives We sought to gain insight into the prevalence of COVID-19 and the impact stringent social distancing (shielding) has had on a large cohort of rheumatology (RD) follow-up patients from a single large UK centre. Methods We linked COVID-19-related deaths, screening and infection rates to our RD population (1.2.20-1.5.20) and audited active rheumatology follow-up patients through survey data communicated via a linked mobile phone SMS message. We assessed epidemiology, effect of stringent social distancing (shielding) and quality of life (HRQoL) by Short Form 12 (SF12). Results There were 10,387 active follow-up patients, 7911 had linked mobile numbers. 12/10,387 RD patients died from COVID-19 (0.12%); local population 4131/7,415,149 (0.12%). For patients with mobile phones, 1693/7911 (21%) responded and of these, 1605 completed the SF12. Inflammatory arthritis predominated 1174/1693 (69%); 792/1693 (47%) were shielding. Advice on shielding/distancing was followed by 1372/1693(81%). 61/1693 (4%) reported COVID-19 (24/61 shielding); medication distribution was similar in COVID and non-COVID patients. Mental SF12 (MCS) but not physical (PCS) component scores were lower in COVID (60) vs. non-COVID (1545), mean differences: MCS, − 3.3; 95% CI − 5.2 to − 1.4, P < 0.001; PCS, − 0.4; 95% CI, − 2.1 to 1.3). In 1545 COVID-negative patients, those shielding had lower MCS (− 2.1; 95% CI − 2.8 to − 1.4) and PCS (− 3.1, 95% CI − 3.7 to − 2.5), both P < 0.001. Conclusions Our full RD cohort had no excess of COVID deaths compared to the general local population. Our survey data suggest that shielding adversely affects both mental and physical health in RD. These data broaden our understanding of shielding, indicating need for further study.

There is a relative lack of confidence among GPs in the assessment and management of IBP vs. mechanical back pain. A simple screening tool for SpA, applicable in primary care urgently needs to be developed. It is reasonable for patients with symptoms suggestive of inflammatory back pain to be referred to secondary care without further investigations. The objective of this study was to assess current practice of our local general practitioners (GPs) in using clinical features, as well as radiological and laboratory investigations to assess patients with IBP. An online, observational questionnaire-based survey was done in 10 West Midlands CCGs including disparate geographical and socioeconomic areas. The survey consisted of 23 questions based on Calin, Berlin and ESSG Criteria for spondyloarthropathies. GPs were asked to rate the importance of a range of symptoms as indications of IBP IBP (10 point scale, range 1-10), and what their views were on which were the most important treatments for patients with suspected inflammatory back pain(4 point scale, range 1-4). The 4 most important symptoms for predicting inflammatory back pain according to our local cohort of GPs were 'morning stiffness' 'sleep disturbances caused by back pain' 'insidious onset' and 'age of onset' < 45. Among the treatment options, NSAIDs were ranked as the most important treatment option for IBP. DMARDS were rated as the next most important treatment option, ahead of physiotherapy and anti-TNF therapy. This study has highlighted relative lack of confidence among GPs in the assessment of IBP. Whether this reflects a need for education or poor performance of these questions in primary care populations requires further study.

SLE has a range of fluctuating symptoms affecting individuals and their ability to work. Although South Asian (SA) patients are at increased risk of developing SLE there is limited knowledge of the impact on employment for these patients in the UK. Understanding ethnicity and disease-specific issues are important to ensure patients are adequately supported at work. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients of SA origin to explore how SLE impacted on their employment. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data which are reported following COREQ guidelines. Ten patients (8 female; 2 male) were recruited from three rheumatology centres in the UK and interviewed between November 2019 and March 2020. Patients were from Indian (n = 8) or Pakistani (n = 2) origin and worked in a range of employment sectors. Four themes emerged from the data: (1) Disease related factors; (2) Employment related factors; (3) Cultural and interpersonal factors impacting on work ability; (4) Recommendations for improvement. Patients’ ability to work was affected by variable work-related support from their hospital clinicians, low awareness of SLE and variable support from their employers, and cultural barriers in their communities that could affect levels of family support received. These findings highlight the need for additional support for SA patients with SLE in the workplace.

Introduction: Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common type of large vessel vasculitis. The diagnosis of GCA is often challenging and there is a difficult balance of over-and underinvestigation. There have been several proposed scoring systems to help clinicians risk stratify patients who may present with suspected GCA.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using electronic medical records of patients referred for a temporal artery biopsy (TAB) and temporal artery ultrasound scan (USS) for suspected GCA. All TABs performed at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust between June 2014 and June 2018 and all USS procedures performed between January 2015 and January 2019 were analysed. Patients who undergo a USS for suspected GCA at our centre routinely have scanned bilateral temporal and axillary arteries. Patients were excluded if they already had a previous diagnosis of GCA (and the clinical question was suspected flare), or if there was insufficient information available.Results: The total number of patients who underwent a confirmatory diagnostic test (either TAB or USS) for suspected GCA was 187. Thirteen of these patients met the exclusion criteria, the remaining 174 patients were included for analysis. A total of 126 of 174 patients underwent a TAB and 63 of 174 had a USS performed; 15 of 174 who had both these were included in the USS cohort because for all these patients, the ultrasound was the first diagnostic test performed. Our results appear to closely mirror the original multicentre results with regard to the prediction of biopsy-positive GCA, with the centiles closely following those in the inception cohort. Also, 0% of the 'low' risk probability biopsy cohort were misclassified; none had a positive biopsy. However, 8% of the low-risk-probability ultrasound cohort were misclassified, as two had a positive ultrasound. Conclusion:Our study highlights that a probability score for GCA derived from a large multi-centre cohort of patients who were biopsy positive predicts ultrasound positivity with similar accuracy. Our work reveals that scoring systems are not infallible but can be helpful in guiding clinical decision making.

Background:Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common type of large vessel vasculitis. Typically it presents in patients over the age of 50 with a combination of temporal headaches, scalp tenderness, jaw claudication, raised inflammatory markers and visual disturbance. The diagnosis of GCA is often challenging and there is a difficult balance of over and under investigation. There have been several proposed scoring systems to help clinicians risk stratify patients who may present with suspected GCA. One such scoring system, published in 2017, showed clinical utility in a large international multi-centre study. Following analysis by logistic regression on data from 530 biopsies, Ing et al. developed a parsimonious prediction model comprising 5 candidate criteria: age, jaw claudication, ischemia-related loss of visual acuity, platelet count and logCRP (Figure 1).[1]Objectives:Increasingly, ultrasound doppler imaging is recognised and accepted as satisfactory means of confirming the diagnosis of GCA, with the presence of the halo sign characteristic for GCA. The aim of our study was to determine whether this GCA prediction model accurately predicts positive temporal artery biopsies in a large, real world UK cohort. In addition, we assessed whether this model accurately predicts positive temporal artery ultrasounds.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was performed using electronic medical records of patients referred for temporal artery biopsy (TAB) and temporal artery ultrasound (USTA) for suspected GCA. All TAB performed at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust between June 2014 - June 2018 and all USTA performed between January 2015 - January 2019 were analysed. Patients who undergo USTA for suspected GCA at our centre routinely have bilateral temporal and axillary arteries scanned. Patients were excluded if they already had a previous diagnosis of GCA (and the clinical question was suspected flare), or if there was insufficient information available.Results:The total number of patients who underwent a confirmatory diagnostic test (either TAB or USTA) for suspected GCA was 187. Thirteen of these patients met the exclusion criteria, the remaining 174 patients were included for analysis. 126/174 patients underwent a TAB, 63/174 had an USTA. 15/174 had both these were included in the USS cohort because for all these patients the ultrasound was the first diagnostic test performed (Table 1). Our results appear to closely mirror the original multi-centre results with regards to prediction of biopsy positive GCA, with the centiles closely following those in the inception cohort. 0% of the ‘low’ risk probability biopsy cohort were misclassified - none had a positive biopsy. However, 8% of the ‘low’ risk probability ultrasound cohort were misclassified - 2 had a positive ultrasound.Table 1.Investigation outcome summaryTotal number of patients who underwent TAB +/or USS TA for?GCA187 - 13 patients rejectedN = 174TAB = 111USS = 63Of these 15 patients hadbothUSS & TABPositive TAB =31 (28%)Negative TAB =80 (72%)Positive USS =24 (38%)Negative USS =39 (62%)Conclusion:Our study, highlights that a probability score for GCA derived from a large multi-centre cohort of patients who were biopsy positive, predicts ultrasound positivity with similar accuracy. Our work reveals that scoring systems are not infallible but can be helpful in guiding clinical decision makingReferences:[1]Ing EB, Lahaie Luna G, Toren A, et al. Multivariable prediction model for suspected giant cell arteritis: development and validation.Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:2031–2042. Published 2017 Nov 22.Acknowledgments:Many thanks to the Rheumatology, Opthalmology & Ultrasound teams at Royal Wolverhampton NHS TrustDisclosure of Interests:None declared

No abstract