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.

The effectiveness of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in respiratory pathogen detection and clinical decision-making in critically rheumatic patients remains largely unexplored.
A single-center retrospective study of 58 rheumatic patients who were admitted to ICU due to suspected pneumonia with acute respiratory failure if they underwent both bronchoalveolar lavage fluid specimen mNGS and combined microbiological tests (CMTs) was conducted to compare their diagnostic performance, using clinical composite diagnosis as the gold standard. Treatment modifications based on mNGS results were also reviewed.
Forty-three patients were diagnosed with microbiologically confirmed pneumonia and 15 were considered as a non-infectious disease. mNGS outperformed CMTs in the accurate diagnosis of infectious and non-infectious lung infiltration (98.1% [57/58] vs. 87.9% [51/58], P = 0.031). A total of 94 causative pathogens were defined by the gold standard and 27 patients had polymicrobial pneumonia. The sensitivity of pathogen detection and complete concordance with the gold standard by mNGS exceeded those by CMTs (92.6% [87/94] vs. 76.6% [72/94], P < 0.001 and 72.1% [31/43] vs. 51.2% [22/43], P = 0.004, respectively). Moreover, 22 pathogens were detected only by mNGS and confirmed by orthogonal test. Accordingly, the etiological diagnosis changed in 19 cases, and the empirical treatment improved in 14 cases, including 8 cases of rescue treatment and 11 of antibiotics de-escalation. At the pathogen-type level, both methods were comparable for bacteria, but mNGS was advantageous to identify viruses (accuracy: 100% vs. 81%, P = 0.004). For Pneumocystis jirovecii detection, mNGS improved the sensitivity compared with Gomori\'s methenamine silver stain (91.7% vs. 4.2%, P < 0.001) and was higher than polymerase chain reaction (79.2%), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.289). In terms of Aspergillus, the better sensitivity with a combination of culture and galactomannan test than that with mNGS was found (100% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.033).
mNGS has an excellent accuracy in etiological diagnosis and pathogen detection of suspected pneumonia in critically rheumatic patients, which has potential significance for clinical decision-making. Its superiority to different types of pathogens depends on the comprehensiveness of CMTs.

BACKGROUND: This study is to explore the prevalence of different stages of bone loss and the potential risk factors in rheumatic patients.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study recruits 1398 rheumatic patients and 302 healthy subjects. Demographic data, blood, and bone mineral density (BMD) tests are collected. Risk factors for bone loss in rheumatic patients are analyzed by logistic regression.
RESULTS: (1) Rheumatic patients are consisted of 40.0% rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.7% systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), 14.2% osteoarthritis (OA), 9.2% ankylosing spondylosis (AS), 7.9% gout, 7.0% primary Sjogren syndrome (pSS), 3.8% systemic sclerosis (SSc), and 3.2% mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD). (2) In male patients aged under 50 and premenopausal female patients, the bone mineral density score of AS (53.9%, P < 0.001) and SLE (39.6%, P = 0.034) patients is lower than the healthy controls (18.2%). (3) Osteopenia and osteoporosis are more prevailing in male patients aged or older than 50 and postmenopausal female patients with RA (P < 0.001), OA (P = 0.02) and SLE (P = 0.011) than healthy counterparts. (4) Those with SLE, RA and AS gain the highest odd ratio of \'score below the expected range for age\', osteopenia and osteoporosis, respectively. (5) Age, female, low BMI and hypovitaminosis D are found negatively associated with bone loss. Dyslipidemia and hyperuricemia could be protective factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Young patients with AS and SLE have a significant higher occurrence of bone loss, and older patients with RA, OA and SLE had higher prevalence than healthy counterparts. SLE, RA, SSc and AS were founded significant higher risks to develop into bone loss after adjustment. Age, BMI and gender were commonly-associated with bone loss in all age-stratified rheumatic patients. These findings were not markedly different from those of previous studies.

To estimate the risk of reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and evaluate the effectiveness of antiviral prophylaxis (AVP) in patients with different status of HBV infection undergoing antirheumatic therapies. We searched Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, cohort studies, or case series studies examining reactivation of HBV in patients undergoing antirheumatic therapy with or without AVP. We estimated the HBV reactivation rate (HRR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) among different patient groups (indirect comparison). We also calculated rate ratio (RR), rate difference (RD) with their 95% CIs, and the number needed to treat (NNT) of AVP (direct comparison). Fifty-three case series studies with 2162 patients were included. The RD of AVP was - 0.13 (95% CI - 0.21 to - 0.05) for all patients, - 0.16 (95% CI - 0.26 to - 0.06) for rheumatic patients with chronic HBV infection, but not statistically significant for patients with other status of HBV infection. Lamivudine (RD - 0.10, 95% CI - 0.25 to 0.05) was less effective than other prophylactic antiviral drugs (RD - 0.31, 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.11). The HHR varied from 55 to 5% by HBV status and treatment. There is limited evidence that AVP was effective for preventing reactivation of HBV in patients undergoing antirheumatic therapy. The effectiveness varies by patient HBV status and antiviral regimens. Rheumatic HBV carriers may be more beneficial from AVP, and lamivudine may be inferior to other AVP regimens. Findings in this study warrant further investigation in rigorous RCTs.