Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: At the end of 2022, the COVID-19 outbreak erupted in China, and BA.5.2 or BF.7 subtypes of Omicron novel variations were implicated in more than 90% of the cases. We created a real-world questionnaire survey to better understand how this new variant pandemic was affecting rheumatic patients in China.
METHODS: During the COVID-19 outbreak in China, the subjects of this study were rheumatic patients and non-rheumatic individuals (control group), who were matched for sex and age. Professional physicians carefully questioned the participants before administering a questionnaire as part of the study. This study focused on the general baseline characteristics, clinical symptoms and treatment after COVID-19 infection, and the target populations\' awareness of COVID-19.
RESULTS: The study included 1130 participants, of whom 572 were assigned to the rheumatic group and 558 to the control group. The percentage of vaccinated controls was significantly higher than that of rheumatic patients (90.1% vs. 62.8%, p < 0.001), while the rate of COVID-19 infection was not significantly different between the two groups (82.3% vs. 86.6%, p = 0.051). Patients with rheumatic disease experienced substantially more days of fever following infection (2.87 ± 3.42 vs. 2.18 ± 1.65, p = 0.002) compared to individuals in the control group. The rheumatic patients had a greater prevalence of cough (67.1% vs. 54.0%, p < 0.001), somnipathy (13.8% vs. 6.0%, p < 0.001), and conjunctivitis/ophthalmodynia (5.3% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.008), while dry throat/throat pain/weakness (49.9% vs. 59.4%, p = 0.003), myalgia/osteodynia (33.3% vs. 41.8%, p = 0.003), and dyspnea (14.0% vs. 25.3%, p < 0.001) were more likely to occur in non-rheumatic group after infection. Human immunoglobulin (2.1% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.006), glucocorticoids (19.5% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001), oxygen support (6.8% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.001), and traditional Chinese medicine (21.9% vs. 16.6%, p = 0.037) were all more frequently used by rheumatic patients with COVID-19 infection. People in the control group were more confused about whether to use masks in following social activities after contracting COVID-19 (14.7% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.001). In the control group, more individuals than patients with rheumatic disease (25.1% vs. 13.4%, p < 0.001) expressed an interest to receive the vaccine again. After being exposed to COVID-19, the majority of rheumatic patients (66.9%) reported no discernible change, only 29.1% reported a worsening of their symptoms, and the remaining 4% indicated an improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: After the COVID-19 outbreak in China, the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases infected with the virus was similar to that of normal individuals. But the clinical symptoms, follow-up treatment requirements, and awareness of the COVID-19 among rheumatic patients were distinct from those among non-rheumatic patients, necessitating the use of individualized diagnosis and treatment plans as well as health advice by medical professionals in clinical work. Key Points • Despite there were different comorbidities and vaccination rates, the rate of COVID-19 infection in patients with rheumatic disease was similar to that of normal individuals. • After COVID-19 infection, rheumatic patients and normal controls had different clinical symptoms and drug usage. • After being exposed to COVID-19, the majority of rheumatic patients felt no significant change in the primary disease, while the normal controls was more likely to accept a new vaccine injection and confused about whether to use masks in following social activities.
METHODS: During the COVID-19 outbreak in China, the subjects of this study were rheumatic patients and non-rheumatic individuals (control group), who were matched for sex and age. Professional physicians carefully questioned the participants before administering a questionnaire as part of the study. This study focused on the general baseline characteristics, clinical symptoms and treatment after COVID-19 infection, and the target populations\' awareness of COVID-19.
RESULTS: The study included 1130 participants, of whom 572 were assigned to the rheumatic group and 558 to the control group. The percentage of vaccinated controls was significantly higher than that of rheumatic patients (90.1% vs. 62.8%, p < 0.001), while the rate of COVID-19 infection was not significantly different between the two groups (82.3% vs. 86.6%, p = 0.051). Patients with rheumatic disease experienced substantially more days of fever following infection (2.87 ± 3.42 vs. 2.18 ± 1.65, p = 0.002) compared to individuals in the control group. The rheumatic patients had a greater prevalence of cough (67.1% vs. 54.0%, p < 0.001), somnipathy (13.8% vs. 6.0%, p < 0.001), and conjunctivitis/ophthalmodynia (5.3% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.008), while dry throat/throat pain/weakness (49.9% vs. 59.4%, p = 0.003), myalgia/osteodynia (33.3% vs. 41.8%, p = 0.003), and dyspnea (14.0% vs. 25.3%, p < 0.001) were more likely to occur in non-rheumatic group after infection. Human immunoglobulin (2.1% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.006), glucocorticoids (19.5% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001), oxygen support (6.8% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.001), and traditional Chinese medicine (21.9% vs. 16.6%, p = 0.037) were all more frequently used by rheumatic patients with COVID-19 infection. People in the control group were more confused about whether to use masks in following social activities after contracting COVID-19 (14.7% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.001). In the control group, more individuals than patients with rheumatic disease (25.1% vs. 13.4%, p < 0.001) expressed an interest to receive the vaccine again. After being exposed to COVID-19, the majority of rheumatic patients (66.9%) reported no discernible change, only 29.1% reported a worsening of their symptoms, and the remaining 4% indicated an improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: After the COVID-19 outbreak in China, the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases infected with the virus was similar to that of normal individuals. But the clinical symptoms, follow-up treatment requirements, and awareness of the COVID-19 among rheumatic patients were distinct from those among non-rheumatic patients, necessitating the use of individualized diagnosis and treatment plans as well as health advice by medical professionals in clinical work. Key Points • Despite there were different comorbidities and vaccination rates, the rate of COVID-19 infection in patients with rheumatic disease was similar to that of normal individuals. • After COVID-19 infection, rheumatic patients and normal controls had different clinical symptoms and drug usage. • After being exposed to COVID-19, the majority of rheumatic patients felt no significant change in the primary disease, while the normal controls was more likely to accept a new vaccine injection and confused about whether to use masks in following social activities.
摘要：
目标：2022年底，中国爆发了COVID-19疫情，Omicron新变异的BA.5.2或BF.7亚型涉及90％以上的病例。我们创建了一个真实世界的问卷调查，以更好地了解这种新的变异大流行如何影响中国的风湿病患者。
方法：在中国爆发COVID-19期间，这项研究的对象是风湿性患者和非风湿性个体（对照组），性别和年龄匹配的人。在作为研究的一部分进行问卷调查之前，专业医生会仔细询问参与者。这项研究侧重于一般基线特征，COVID-19感染后的临床症状和治疗，和目标人群对COVID-19的认识。
结果：该研究包括1130名参与者，其中572人被分配到风湿病组，558人被分配到对照组。接种疫苗对照组的百分比显着高于风湿病患者（90.1％vs.62.8%,p<0.001)，而COVID-19感染率在两组之间没有显着差异(82.3%vs.86.6%,p=0.051)。风湿病患者在感染后经历了更长时间的发烧（2.87±3.42vs.与对照组的个体相比，为2.18±1.65，p=0.002）。风湿性患者的咳嗽患病率更高（67.1％vs.54.0%,p<0.001)，睡眠病（13.8%vs.6.0%，p<0.001)，和结膜炎/眼炎（5.3%vs.2.1%,p=0.008),而喉咙干燥/喉咙疼痛/虚弱(49.9%vs.59.4%,p=0.003),肌痛/骨痛（33.3%vs.41.8%,p=0.003),和呼吸困难（14.0%vs.25.3%,p<0.001）更可能发生在非风湿病组感染后。人类免疫球蛋白（2.1%vs.0.2%，p=0.006),糖皮质激素（19.5%vs.1.6%,p<0.001)，氧气支持（6.8%vs.2.1%,p<0.001)，和中药(21.9%vs.16.6%,p=0.037）都更常用于患有COVID-19感染的风湿病患者。对照组的人在感染COVID-19后是否在社交活动中使用口罩更为困惑(14.7%vs.7.6%,p=0.001)。在对照组中，比风湿性疾病患者多(25.1%vs.13.4%,p<0.001）表示有兴趣再次接受疫苗。在暴露于COVID-19后，大多数风湿病患者(66.9%)报告没有明显的变化，只有29.1%的人报告症状恶化，其余4%表示有所改善。
结论：在中国爆发COVID-19后，风湿性疾病患者感染该病毒的比例与正常人相似。但是临床症状，后续治疗要求,风湿性疾病患者对COVID-19的认识与非风湿性疾病患者不同，需要在临床工作中使用个性化的诊断和治疗计划以及医疗专业人员的健康建议。要点•尽管有不同的合并症和疫苗接种率，风湿性疾病患者的COVID-19感染率与正常人相似.•COVID-19感染后，风湿性疾病患者和正常对照组有不同的临床症状和药物使用情况。•在暴露于COVID-19后，大多数风湿病患者感觉原发疾病没有明显变化，而正常对照组更有可能接受新疫苗注射，并且对是否在随后的社交活动中使用口罩感到困惑。
方法：在中国爆发COVID-19期间，这项研究的对象是风湿性患者和非风湿性个体（对照组），性别和年龄匹配的人。在作为研究的一部分进行问卷调查之前，专业医生会仔细询问参与者。这项研究侧重于一般基线特征，COVID-19感染后的临床症状和治疗，和目标人群对COVID-19的认识。
结果：该研究包括1130名参与者，其中572人被分配到风湿病组，558人被分配到对照组。接种疫苗对照组的百分比显着高于风湿病患者（90.1％vs.62.8%,p<0.001)，而COVID-19感染率在两组之间没有显着差异(82.3%vs.86.6%,p=0.051)。风湿病患者在感染后经历了更长时间的发烧（2.87±3.42vs.与对照组的个体相比，为2.18±1.65，p=0.002）。风湿性患者的咳嗽患病率更高（67.1％vs.54.0%,p<0.001)，睡眠病（13.8%vs.6.0%，p<0.001)，和结膜炎/眼炎（5.3%vs.2.1%,p=0.008),而喉咙干燥/喉咙疼痛/虚弱(49.9%vs.59.4%,p=0.003),肌痛/骨痛（33.3%vs.41.8%,p=0.003),和呼吸困难（14.0%vs.25.3%,p<0.001）更可能发生在非风湿病组感染后。人类免疫球蛋白（2.1%vs.0.2%，p=0.006),糖皮质激素（19.5%vs.1.6%,p<0.001)，氧气支持（6.8%vs.2.1%,p<0.001)，和中药(21.9%vs.16.6%,p=0.037）都更常用于患有COVID-19感染的风湿病患者。对照组的人在感染COVID-19后是否在社交活动中使用口罩更为困惑(14.7%vs.7.6%,p=0.001)。在对照组中，比风湿性疾病患者多(25.1%vs.13.4%,p<0.001）表示有兴趣再次接受疫苗。在暴露于COVID-19后，大多数风湿病患者(66.9%)报告没有明显的变化，只有29.1%的人报告症状恶化，其余4%表示有所改善。
结论：在中国爆发COVID-19后，风湿性疾病患者感染该病毒的比例与正常人相似。但是临床症状，后续治疗要求,风湿性疾病患者对COVID-19的认识与非风湿性疾病患者不同，需要在临床工作中使用个性化的诊断和治疗计划以及医疗专业人员的健康建议。要点•尽管有不同的合并症和疫苗接种率，风湿性疾病患者的COVID-19感染率与正常人相似.•COVID-19感染后，风湿性疾病患者和正常对照组有不同的临床症状和药物使用情况。•在暴露于COVID-19后，大多数风湿病患者感觉原发疾病没有明显变化，而正常对照组更有可能接受新疫苗注射，并且对是否在随后的社交活动中使用口罩感到困惑。
