OBJECTIVE: To identify the effectiveness and safety of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) patients.
METHODS: RMD patients with COVID-19 in Jiangsu Province were polled between December 8, 2022, and February 1, 2023. Information on demographics, disease characteristics, antirheumatic drug use, vaccination status and survival state were collected. COVID-19-associated pneumonia was the primary outcome. The effect of COVID-19 immunization on RMD patients was assessed using multivariate logistic regression, and the adverse events (AEs) following vaccination were evaluated.
RESULTS: Among 592 RMD patients with COVID-19, 276 (46.6%) individuals experienced COVID-19-associated pneumonia, and 290 (49.0%) patients were injected with inactivated vaccines. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, vaccines reduced the incidence of COVID-19-associated pneumonia, and receiving booster vaccine was an independent protective factor for COVID-19-associated pneumonia in RMD patients (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-0.98, p = .034). In particular, inactivated vaccines have a protective impact on RMD patients with a high risk of developing pneumonia, including those aged 45 years and older (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.83), and who have lung involvement (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.82). The total AEs rate of vaccines was 13.9% (40/290), only 11 (3.8%) experienced the recurrence or deterioration of RMDs, and no serious AEs occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Inactivated COVID-19 vaccines were safe and effective in reducing the risk of COVID-19-associated pneumonia of RMD patients in China.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical features of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the relationship between RMDs relapse and SARS-CoV-2 infection.
METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional observational study among 585 patients with RMDs and 619 individuals without RMDs. Data on demographics, the clinical features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), antirheumatic therapy, and RMD relapse were collected. Differences between RMDs and control groups, infected and uninfected groups, relapse and non-relapse RMDs groups were examined. The influence of COVID-19 infection on medications and relapse of RMDs was also assessed.
RESULTS: Among 1204 participants finally recruited for analysis, 1030 (85.5%) were infected with COVID-19. Seven hundred and ninety-five (77.2%) of infected individuals were female, and the median age was 40 years (IQR 33, 50). Patients in the RMD group had a relatively lower risk of COVID-19 symptoms whereas were significantly more likely to require hospitalization (6.7% vs. 2.2%). In the RMDs group, younger patients who were under the age of 65 were more likely to report more symptoms. More patients with RMD relapse (27, 34.6%) adjusted their medications during the period of COVID-19 infection than those without relapse (59, 13.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RMDs were at lower risk of symptoms of COVID-19. Rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients experience a higher risk of relapse especially when they adjust medications during COVID-19 infection. The long-term prognosis of infected RMDs patients need further investigation.

UNASSIGNED: To explore how patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) perceive participation in the goal setting process prior to interdisciplinary rehabilitation.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 participants admitted to an interdisciplinary rehabilitation stay for patients with RMDs at two Danish rehabilitation centres. Qualitative content analysis was applied.
UNASSIGNED: The participants perceived goal setting as a joint venture between two parties: the health professionals and the participant. Three categories were formed, which described both facilitators and barriers in the process. Responsibility for goal setting described the importance of shared responsibility, or health professionals as experts, taking full responsibility for goal setting. Equipped for goal setting included perceptions of being well prepared for the process, or considerations that goal setting was difficult because of a lack of information. An equal member of the team entailed both the feeling of being recognised as one in the team, or feeling like an outsider.
UNASSIGNED: Goal setting is perceived as a challenge by some patients. Participation in goal setting depends on both the capacity and the opportunity to participate which are factors linked to patients\' level of health literacy.
Patients largely perceive goal setting as a joint venture, constituting a partnership aimed at sharing decisions regarding one or more rehabilitation goals, yet, for some patients, active participation in this joint venture poses challenges.When patients perceive a shared responsibility, acquire appropriate and sufficient knowledge prior to the process and feel accepted as whole persons based on a biopsychosocial approach it facilitates goal setting.Health professionals should be aware of barriers perceived by patients, such as abdicating responsibility because they view health professionals as authority figures, feeling uncertain about the purpose of setting goals and having difficulties in receiving and applying information.Patients’ health literacy as well health literacy responsiveness may be of importance to the experience of barriers to shared decisions and goal setting among patients with RMDs.

UNASSIGNED: To explore what patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) need and receive of follow-up care after specialized rehabilitation, and whether received follow-up is associated with health outcomes after 1 year. Further, to compare these findings with patients\' experiences to improve the understanding of how follow-up takes place.
UNASSIGNED: In a mixed methods study, patients received a rehabilitation programme designed to improve the continuity in rehabilitation across care levels. A total of 168 patients completed questionnaires, of which 21 were also interviewed.
UNASSIGNED: At discharge, most patients reported needs for follow-up. These needs were largely met within 1 year, mainly resulting from patients\' initiatives to re-connect with previous contacts. The degree of received follow-up was not associated with goal attainment, quality of life, or physical function. Factors related to providers (competence, communication skills), context (delays, limited access to care), and patients (motivation, life situation, preferences) seemed to be decisive for the progress of the rehabilitation process over time.
UNASSIGNED: The results provide evidence that access to follow-up care is crucial to patients with RMDs. However, it also highlights several factors that may influence its impact. These results can be used to optimise design and implementation of future follow-up interventions.
Healthcare providers should take greater responsibility for creating continuity in rehabilitation across levels of care.Follow-up care should be adapted to patients’ needs, goals, and preferences as regards content, timing, and mode of delivery.Follow-up should be linked to a rehabilitation plan for each patient to ensure continuity of care.More effective communication systems across service levels should be established.

UNASSIGNED: To investigate how a quality improvement program (BRIDGE), designed to promote coordination and continuity in rehabilitation services, was delivered and perceived by providers in routine practice for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.
UNASSIGNED: A convergent mixed methods approach was nested within a stepped-wedge, randomized controlled trial. The intervention program was developed to bridge gaps between secondary and primary healthcare, comprising the following elements: motivational interviewing; patient-specific goal setting; written rehabilitation-plans; personalized feedback on progress; and tailored follow-up. Data from health professionals who delivered the program were collected and analyzed separately, using two questionnaires and three focus groups. Results were integrated during the overall interpretation and discussion.
UNASSIGNED: The program delivery depended on the providers\' skills and competence, as well as on contextual factors in their teams and institutions. Suggested possibilities for improvements included follow-up with sufficient support from next of kin and external services, and the practicing of action and coping plans, standardized outcome measures, and feedback on progress.
UNASSIGNED: Leaders and clinicians should discuss efforts to ensure confident and qualified rehabilitation delivery at the levels of individual providers, teams, and institutions, and pay equal attention to each component in the process from admission to follow-up.
Quality in rehabilitation should be characterized by a continuous and coordinated process from goal setting to follow-up.To improve the quality, sufficient involvement of next of kin and external services is needed.Clinicians may need training to build confidence in motivational interviewing, action- and coping planning, feedback on progress, and follow-up.Leaders should organize education sessions, optimize schedules, insert standardized outcome measures, and facilitate collaboration across levels of care and services.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a structured goal-setting and tailored follow-up rehabilitation intervention with existing rehabilitation in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.
METHODS: A pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.
METHODS: Eight rehabilitation centers in secondary healthcare, Norway.
METHODS: A total of 374 adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases were included in either the experimental (168) or the control group (206).
METHODS: A new rehabilitation intervention which comprised structured goal setting, action planning, motivational interviewing, digital self-monitoring of goal progress, and individual follow-up support after discharge according to patients\' needs and available resources in primary healthcare (the BRIDGE-intervention), was compared to usual care.
METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes were collected electronically on admission and discharge from rehabilitation, and after 2, 7, and 12 months. The primary outcome was patients\' goal attainment measured by the Patient Specific Functional Scale (0-10, 10 best) at 7 months. Secondary outcome measures included physical function (30-s Sit-To-Stand test), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L-index), and self-assessed health (EQ-VAS). The main statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed models.
RESULTS: No significant treatment effects of the BRIDGE-intervention were found for either primary (Patient Specific Functional Scale mean difference 0.1 [95% CI: -0.5, 0.8], p = 0.70), or secondary outcomes 7 months after rehabilitation.
CONCLUSIONS: The BRIDGE-intervention was not shown to be more effective than existing rehabilitation for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. There is still a need for more knowledge about factors that can improve the quality, continuity, and long-term health effects of rehabilitation for this patient group.

Vaccine-induced immunity is essential for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on humoral and cellular immunogenicity and safety of different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with autoimmune rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are limited.
A single center observational study evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of the two-dose regimen of the BBIBP-CorV inactivated, Gam-COVID-Vac and AZD1222 adenovirus-based, and BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 mRNA-based vaccines in patients with RMDs (n = 89) compared with healthy controls (n = 74). Neutralizing anti-RBD (receptor binding domain) specific antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell response were measured one and four months after the second vaccine dose in parallel with vaccination efficacy and safety.
Disease-specific comparison showed that antibody response at four months was higher in spondylarthropathies compared to rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune RMDs. Risk factors for reduced immunogenicity included longer disease duration, positive immunoserological profile and anti-CD20 therapy of patients. The rate of positive anti-RBD antibody response for healthy controls versus patients after 4 months post vaccination was 69% vs. 55% for the inactivated viral vaccine BBIBP-CorV, 97% vs. 53% for the pooled data of adenovirus vector-based vaccines Gam-COVID-Vac and AZD1222, or 100% vs. 81% for the pooled data of mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively. Patients who received the Gam-COVID-Vac or mRNA-1273 vaccines had a higher proportion of TNF-α producing CD4+ T-cells upon SARS-CoV-2 antigen stimulation compared to the inactivated viral vaccine.
All five investigated vaccines were immunogenic in the majority of patients and healthy controls with variable antibody and T-cell response and an acceptable safety profile.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the impact of the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and lockdown measures on patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) in the UK and other European countries (OEC).
METHODS: REUMAVID was an online cross-sectional survey of seven European countries. The data collected included the following: demographics, lifestyle, employment, access to health-care services, disease-specific characteristics, the World Health Organization five well-being index (WHO-5), hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), visual analogue scale (VAS) disease activity, and the perceived acceptable symptom scale.
RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred responses were received between April and July 2020 [UK, n = 558 (31.0%); OEC, n = 1242 (69.0%)]. UK patients were more likely to be older [mean (S.d.): UK 58.5 (13.4) years; OEC 50.0 (12.2) years], university educated [UK n = 302 (54.1%); OEC n = 572 (46.1%), quit smoking [UK n = 92 (59.4%); OEC n = 65 (16.2%)] and continue exercise [UK, n = 216 (49.2%); OEC, n = 228 (33.1%)], although, conversely, alcohol consumption increased [UK n = 99 (36.3%); OEC n = 98 (12.1%)]. UK patients felt informed about COVID-19 (UK 72.7%, OEC 57.4%) and kept their planned rheumatology [UK n = 87 (51.2%); OEC n = 213 (38.6%)] and/or general practice appointments [UK n = 87 (76.3%); OEC n = 310 (53.9%)]. Almost half the patients with RMDs reported a decline in health and well-being, although this was less common in UK patients [UK n = 214 (38.4%), OEC n = 618 (50.2%)], who reported better perceived acceptable symptom scale, VAS pain and HADS scores, but worse WHO-5 scores.
CONCLUSIONS: UK RMD patients performed better in the physical and mental health domains tested, possibly owing to a less restrictive lockdown and better health-care access. These findings have implications for health-care services globally in planning patient care after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Follow-up care (FU-care) and self-management are recognized as important to ensure prolonged effects of rehabilitation. Objectives of this study were to explore current FU-care and self-management after specialized rehabilitation for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.
This multicentre cohort study included 523 patients who self-reported need and plans for FU-care and plans for self-management activities (SMAs) at rehabilitation discharge. The FU-care received and adherence to SMA were self-reported after 4-, 8-, and 12-months. Predictors for received FU-care and adherence to SMA were explored in multiple logistic regression models.
Plans for FU-care were significantly associated with received FU-care. Younger age, better coping skills, and performing regular social activities and hobbies were significant predictors for received FU-care. Throughout the follow-up year, 221 (51%) participants had adherence to their SMA plans. Older age, regular physical activity, more severe pain, and performing regular social activities and hobbies were significant predictors for adherence to SMA. Participants with SMA adherence more often reported planned FU-care, and more frequently received the FU-care they needed.
Planning FU-care should be integrated in specialized rehabilitation. Patients with poor coping skills and sedentary lifestyle may need more support over longer time to implement behavioral changes for healthy self-management.Implications for rehabilitationPlanning follow-up should be integrated in specialized rehabilitation as it supports self-management and receiving follow-up at home.Patients with sedentary lifestyle, poor coping skills, and depression may need more support over longer time to implement healthy self-management.Structure and routines in daily life enhance self-management.

暂无摘要。