COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in inflammatory arthritis patients: serial surveys from a large longitudinal national Australian cohort

Objectives: To determine COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rates in inflammatory arthritis patients and identify factors associated with changing vaccine hesitancy over time. Methods: This investigation was a prospective cohort study of inflammatory arthritis patients from community and public hospital outpatient rheumatology clinics enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD). Two surveys were conducted, one immediately prior to (pre-pandemic) and another approximately 1 year after the start of the pandemic (follow-up). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy was measured at follow-up, and general vaccine hesitancy was inferred pre-pandemic; these were used to identify factors associated with fixed and changing vaccine beliefs, including sources of information and broader beliefs about medication. Results: Of the 594 participants who completed both surveys, 74 (12%) were COVID-19 vaccine hesitant. This was associated with prepandemic beliefs about medications being harmful (P < 0.001) and overused (P ¼ 0.002), with stronger beliefs resulting in vaccine hesitancy persistent over two time points (P ¼ 0.008, P ¼ 0.005). For those not vaccine hesitant pre-pandemic, the development of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with a lower likelihood of seeking out vaccine information from health-care professionals (P < 0.001). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was not associated with new influenza vaccine hesitancy (P ¼ 0.138). Conclusion: In this study of vaccine beliefs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in inflammatory arthritis patients varied, depending on vaccine attitudes immediately prior to the start of the pandemic. Fixed beliefs reflected broader views about medications, while fluid beliefs were highly influenced by whether they sought out information from health-care professionals, including rheumatologists.Christopher McMaster, David F. L. Liew, Susan Lester, Adam Rischin, Rachel J. Black, Vibhasha Chand, Ashley Fletcher, Marissa N. Lassere, Lyn March, Philip C. Robinson, Rachelle Buchbinder, Catherine L. Hil

MCID/Low Disease Activity State Workshop: low disease activity state in rheumatoid arthritis.

Item does not contain fulltextThe MCID (minimal clinically important difference) module of OMERACT 5 developed a research agenda that led to the conclusion that a state of low disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) would need to be defined. To develop such a definition the various concepts and terminologies, the process for developing an operational definition, and the availability and design of longitudinal datasets for validation needed to be considered. This article describes the process of the MCID/Low Disease Activity State Workshop at OMERACT 6 to develop such a definition

Minimal disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis: a preliminary definition.

Contains fulltext : 48816.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Agreement on response criteria in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has allowed better standardization and interpretation of clinical trial reports. With recent advances in therapy, the proportion of patients achieving a satisfactory state of minimal disease activity (MDA) is becoming a more important measure with which to compare different treatment strategies. The threshold for MDA is between high disease activity and remission and, by definition, anyone in remission will also be in MDA. True remission is still rare in RA; in addition, the American College of Rheumatology definition is difficult to apply in the context of trials. Participants at OMERACT 6 in 2002 agreed on a conceptual definition of minimal disease activity (MDA): "that state of disease activity deemed a useful target of treatment by both the patient and the physician, given current treatment possibilities and limitations." To prepare for a preliminary operational definition of MDA for use in clinical trials, we asked rheumatologists to assess 60 patient profiles describing real RA patients seen in routine clinical practice. Based on their responses, several candidate definitions for MDA were designed and discussed at the OMERACT 7 in 2004. Feedback from participants and additional on-site analyses in a cross-sectional database allowed the formulation of 2 preliminary, equivalent definitions of MDA: one based on the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) index, and one based on meeting cutpoints in 5 out the 7 WHO/ILAR core set measures. Researchers applying these definitions first need to choose whether to use the DAS28 or the core set definition, because although each selects a similar proportion in a population, these are not always the same patients. In both MDA definitions, an initial decision node places all patients in MDA who have a tender joint count of 0 and a swollen joint count of 0, and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) no greater than 10 mm. If this condition is not met: * The DAS28 definition places patients in MDA when DAS28 < or = 2.85; * The core set definition places patients in MDA when they meet 5 of 7 criteria: (1) Pain (0-10) < or = 2; (2) Swollen joint count (0-28) < or = 1; (3) Tender joint count (0-28) < or = 1; (4) Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ, 0-3) < or = 0.5; (5) Physician global assessment of disease activity (0-10) < or = 1.5; (6) Patient global assessment of disease activity (0-10) < or = 2; (7) ESR < or = 20. This set of 2 definitions gained approval of 73% of the attendees. These (and other) definitions will now be subject to further validation in other databases