Immediate effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient health, health-care use, and behaviours : results from an international survey of people with rheumatic diseases

Funding Information: We would like to thank all the clinicians, health-care providers, and patient organisations who helped to develop and disseminate this survey. A full list of all the contributors can be found in the appendix (pp 44?45). Preliminary results were presented at the American College of Rheumatology 2020 conference. The views expressed here are those of the authors and participating members of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance and do not necessarily represent the views of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, the UK National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research, the UK Department of Health, or any other organisation. Funding Information: JSH reports grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and Rheumatology Research Alliance; and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, and Biogen, outside of the submitted work. JWL reports grants from Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. JAS reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Optum, and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. CH reports personal fees from AstraZeneca and Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, outside of the submitted work. MJL reports grants from American College of Rheumatology during the conduct of the study and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB, outside of the submitted work. SES is supported by the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium and Vasculitis Foundation outside of the submitted work. KLD reports grants from Novartis, Sobi, National Institutes of Health, and Horizon Bio, outside of the submitted work. EFM reports that the Liga Portuguesa Contra as Doenças Reumaticas received support for specific activities: grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal SA, MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharmakern, GAfPA, AMGEN, A Menarini Portugal; grants and non-financial support from Pfizer; and non-financial support from Grünenthal GmbH and Tilray, outside of the submitted work. DPR is the volunteer Vice President of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, which is primarily supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies. DPR reports consulting fees from NovoNordisk Canada and speaking fees and an honoraria from Eli Lilly Canada, outside of the submitted work. DPR also lives with rheumatoid arthritis. SB reports personal fees from Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, and Horizon Pharma, outside of the submitted work. RG reports personal fees from AbbVie New Zealand, Cornerstones, Janssen New Zealand; and personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer New Zealand, (all <$10 000) outside of the submitted work. PMM reports personal fees from Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and grants and personal fees from Orphazyme, outside of the submitted work. PCR reports personal fees from Abbvie, Gilead, Lilly, and Roche; grants and personal fees from Novartis, UCB Pharma, Janssen, and Pfizer; and non-financial support from BMS, outside of the submitted work. PS reports honoraria from being a social media editor for @ACR_Journals, outside of the submitted work. ZSW reports grants from National Institutes of Health, BMS, and Sanofi; and personal fees from Viela Bio and MedPace, outside of the submitted work. JY reports personal fees from Pfizer and Eli Lilly, and grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside of the submitted work. ES is a Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, which is a patient-run, volunteer-based organisation whose activities are primarily supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies. All other authors declare no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Elsevier LtdBackground: The impact and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease are unclear. We developed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease worldwide. Methods: Survey questions were developed by key stakeholder groups and disseminated worldwide through social media, websites, and patient support organisations. Questions included demographics, rheumatic disease diagnosis, COVID-19 diagnosis, adoption of protective behaviours to mitigate COVID-19 exposure, medication access and changes, health-care access and communication with rheumatologists, and changes in employment or schooling. Adults age 18 years and older with inflammatory or autoimmune rheumatic diseases were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We excluded participants reporting only non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as fibromyalgia or osteoarthritis. Findings: 12 117 responses to the survey were received between April 3 and May 8, 2020, and of these, 10 407 respondents had included appropriate age data. We included complete responses from 9300 adults with rheumatic disease (mean age 46·1 years; 8375 [90·1%] women, 893 [9·6%] men, and 32 [0·3%] participants who identified as non-binary). 6273 (67·5%) of respondents identified as White, 1565 (16·8%) as Latin American, 198 (2·1%) as Black, 190 (2·0%) as Asian, and 42 (0·5%) as Native American or Aboriginal or First Nation. The most common rheumatic disease diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis (3636 [39·1%] of 9300), systemic lupus erythematosus (2882 [31·0%]), and Sjögren's syndrome (1290 [13·9%]). Most respondents (6921 [82·0%] of 8441) continued their antirheumatic medications as prescribed. Almost all (9266 [99·7%] of 9297) respondents adopted protective behaviours to limit SARS-CoV-2 exposure. A change in employment status occurred in 2524 (27·1%) of 9300) of respondents, with a 13·6% decrease in the number in full-time employment (from 4066 to 3514). Interpretation: People with rheumatic disease maintained therapy and followed public health advice to mitigate the risks of COVID-19. Substantial employment status changes occurred, with potential implications for health-care access, medication affordability, mental health, and rheumatic disease activity. Funding: American College of Rheumatology.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Early experience of COVID-19 vaccination in adults with systemic rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey.

Background: We describe the early experiences of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: From 2 April to 30 April 2021, we conducted an online, international survey of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination. We collected patient-reported data on clinician communication, beliefs and intent about discontinuing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around the time of vaccination, and patient-reported adverse events after vaccination. Results: We analysed 2860 adults with systemic rheumatic diseases who received COVID-19 vaccination (mean age 55.3 years, 86.7% female, 86.3% white). Types of COVID-19 vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (53.2%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (22.6%), Moderna (21.3%), Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (1.7%) and others (1.2%). The most common rheumatic disease was rheumatoid arthritis (42.3%), and 81.2% of respondents were on a DMARD. The majority (81.9%) reported communicating with clinicians about vaccination. Most (66.9%) were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy, although many (44.3%) were concerned about rheumatic disease flares. After vaccination, the most reported patient-reported adverse events were fatigue/somnolence (33.4%), headache (27.7%), muscle/joint pains (22.8%) and fever/chills (19.9%). Rheumatic disease flares that required medication changes occurred in 4.6%. Conclusion: Among adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination, patient-reported adverse events were typical of those reported in the general population. Most patients were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy. The relatively low frequency of rheumatic disease flare requiring medications was reassuring

Diabetes mortality and trends before 25 years of age: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Diabetes, particularly type 1 diabetes, at younger ages can be a largely preventable cause of death with the correct health care and services. We aimed to evaluate diabetes mortality and trends at ages younger than 25 years globally using data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019. Methods We used estimates of GBD 2019 to calculate international diabetes mortality at ages younger than 25 years in 1990 and 2019. Data sources for causes of death were obtained from vital registration systems, verbal autopsies, and other surveillance systems for 1990–2019. We estimated death rates for each location using the GBD Cause of Death Ensemble model. We analysed the association of age-standardised death rates per 100 000 population with the Socio-demographic Index (SDI) and a measure of universal health coverage (UHC) and described the variability within SDI quintiles. We present estimates with their 95% uncertainty intervals. Findings In 2019, 16 300 (95% uncertainty interval 14 200 to 18 900) global deaths due to diabetes (type 1 and 2 combined) occurred in people younger than 25 years and 73·7% (68·3 to 77·4) were classified as due to type 1 diabetes. The age-standardised death rate was 0·50 (0·44 to 0·58) per 100 000 population, and 15 900 (97·5%) of these deaths occurred in low to high-middle SDI countries. The rate was 0·13 (0·12 to 0·14) per 100 000 population in the high SDI quintile, 0·60 (0·51 to 0·70) per 100 000 population in the low-middle SDI quintile, and 0·71 (0·60 to 0·86) per 100 000 population in the low SDI quintile. Within SDI quintiles, we observed large variability in rates across countries, in part explained by the extent of UHC (r2=0·62). From 1990 to 2019, age-standardised death rates decreased globally by 17·0% (−28·4 to −2·9) for all diabetes, and by 21·0% (–33·0 to −5·9) when considering only type 1 diabetes. However, the low SDI quintile had the lowest decline for both all diabetes (−13·6% [–28·4 to 3·4]) and for type 1 diabetes (−13·6% [–29·3 to 8·9]). Interpretation Decreasing diabetes mortality at ages younger than 25 years remains an important challenge, especially in low and low-middle SDI countries. Inadequate diagnosis and treatment of diabetes is likely to be major contributor to these early deaths, highlighting the urgent need to provide better access to insulin and basic diabetes education and care. This mortality metric, derived from readily available and frequently updated GBD data, can help to monitor preventable diabetes-related deaths over time globally, aligned with the UN's Sustainable Development Targets, and serve as an indicator of the adequacy of basic diabetes care for type 1 and type 2 diabetes across nations.publishedVersio

Measuring routine childhood vaccination coverage in 204 countries and territories, 1980-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2020, Release 1

Background: Measuring routine childhood vaccination is crucial to inform global vaccine policies and programme implementation, and to track progress towards targets set by the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) and Immunization Agenda 2030. Robust estimates of routine vaccine coverage are needed to identify past successes and persistent vulnerabilities. Drawing from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020, Release 1, we did a systematic analysis of global, regional, and national vaccine coverage trends using a statistical framework, by vaccine and over time. // Methods: For this analysis we collated 55 326 country-specific, cohort-specific, year-specific, vaccine-specific, and dose-specific observations of routine childhood vaccination coverage between 1980 and 2019. Using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, we produced location-specific and year-specific estimates of 11 routine childhood vaccine coverage indicators for 204 countries and territories from 1980 to 2019, adjusting for biases in country-reported data and reflecting reported stockouts and supply disruptions. We analysed global and regional trends in coverage and numbers of zero-dose children (defined as those who never received a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis [DTP] vaccine dose), progress towards GVAP targets, and the relationship between vaccine coverage and sociodemographic development. // Findings: By 2019, global coverage of third-dose DTP (DTP3; 81·6% [95% uncertainty interval 80·4–82·7]) more than doubled from levels estimated in 1980 (39·9% [37·5–42·1]), as did global coverage of the first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1; from 38·5% [35·4–41·3] in 1980 to 83·6% [82·3–84·8] in 2019). Third-dose polio vaccine (Pol3) coverage also increased, from 42·6% (41·4–44·1) in 1980 to 79·8% (78·4–81·1) in 2019, and global coverage of newer vaccines increased rapidly between 2000 and 2019. The global number of zero-dose children fell by nearly 75% between 1980 and 2019, from 56·8 million (52·6–60·9) to 14·5 million (13·4–15·9). However, over the past decade, global vaccine coverage broadly plateaued; 94 countries and territories recorded decreasing DTP3 coverage since 2010. Only 11 countries and territories were estimated to have reached the national GVAP target of at least 90% coverage for all assessed vaccines in 2019. // Interpretation: After achieving large gains in childhood vaccine coverage worldwide, in much of the world this progress was stalled or reversed from 2010 to 2019. These findings underscore the importance of revisiting routine immunisation strategies and programmatic approaches, recentring service delivery around equity and underserved populations. Strengthening vaccine data and monitoring systems is crucial to these pursuits, now and through to 2030, to ensure that all children have access to, and can benefit from, lifesaving vaccines

Global, regional, and national incidence of six major immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: findings from the global burden of disease study 2019

Background The causes for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are diverse and the incidence trends of IMIDs from specific causes are rarely studied. The study aims to investigate the pattern and trend of IMIDs from 1990 to 2019. Methods We collected detailed information on six major causes of IMIDs, including asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, between 1990 and 2019, derived from the Global Burden of Disease study in 2019. The average annual percent change (AAPC) in number of incidents and age standardized incidence rate (ASR) on IMIDs, by sex, age, region, and causes, were calculated to quantify the temporal trends. Findings In 2019, rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease accounted 1.59%, 36.17%, 54.71%, 0.09%, 6.84%, 0.60% of overall new IMIDs cases, respectively. The ASR of IMIDs showed substantial regional and global variation with the highest in High SDI region, High-income North America, and United States of America. Throughout human lifespan, the age distribution of incident cases from six IMIDs was quite different. Globally, incident cases of IMIDs increased with an AAPC of 0.68 and the ASR decreased with an AAPC of −0.34 from 1990 to 2019. The incident cases increased across six IMIDs, the ASR of rheumatoid arthritis increased (0.21, 95% CI 0.18, 0.25), while the ASR of asthma (AAPC = −0.41), inflammatory bowel disease (AAPC = −0.72), multiple sclerosis (AAPC = −0.26), psoriasis (AAPC = −0.77), and atopic dermatitis (AAPC = −0.15) decreased. The ASR of overall and six individual IMID increased with SDI at regional and global level. Countries with higher ASR in 1990 experienced a more rapid decrease in ASR. Interpretation The incidence patterns of IMIDs varied considerably across the world. Innovative prevention and integrative management strategy are urgently needed to mitigate the increasing ASR of rheumatoid arthritis and upsurging new cases of other five IMIDs, respectively. Funding The Global Burden of Disease Study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The project funded by Scientific Research Fund of Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (2022QN38)

COVID-19: Factors associated with psychological distress, fear, and coping strategies among community members across 17 countries

Abstract Background The current pandemic of COVID-19 impacted the psychological wellbeing of populations globally. Objectives We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed. Results A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (&plusmn;SD) was 33(&plusmn;13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]). Conclusions The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of those people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements. </jats:sec

Assessing performance of the Healthcare Access and Quality Index, overall and by select age groups, for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Health-care needs change throughout the life course. It is thus crucial to assess whether health systems provide access to quality health care for all ages. Drawing from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019), we measured the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index overall and for select age groups in 204 locations from 1990 to 2019. Methods We distinguished the overall HAQ Index (ages 0–74 years) from scores for select age groups: the young (ages 0–14 years), working (ages 15–64 years), and post-working (ages 65–74 years) groups. For GBD 2019, HAQ Index construction methods were updated to use the arithmetic mean of scaled mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs) and risk-standardised death rates (RSDRs) for 32 causes of death that should not occur in the presence of timely, quality health care. Across locations and years, MIRs and RSDRs were scaled from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) separately, putting the HAQ Index on a different relative scale for each age group. We estimated absolute convergence for each group on the basis of whether the HAQ Index grew faster in absolute terms between 1990 and 2019 in countries with lower 1990 HAQ Index scores than countries with higher 1990 HAQ Index scores and by Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile. SDI is a summary metric of overall development. Findings Between 1990 and 2019, the HAQ Index increased overall (by 19·6 points, 95% uncertainty interval 17·9–21·3), as well as among the young (22·5, 19·9–24·7), working (17·2, 15·2–19·1), and post-working (15·1, 13·2–17·0) age groups. Large differences in HAQ Index scores were present across SDI levels in 2019, with the overall index ranging from 30·7 (28·6–33·0) on average in low-SDI countries to 83·4 (82·4–84·3) on average in high-SDI countries. Similarly large ranges between low-SDI and high-SDI countries, respectively, were estimated in the HAQ Index for the young (40·4–89·0), working (33·8–82·8), and post-working (30·4–79·1) groups. Absolute convergence in HAQ Index was estimated in the young group only. In contrast, divergence was estimated among the working and post-working groups, driven by slow progress in low-SDI countries. Interpretation Although major gaps remain across levels of social and economic development, convergence in the young group is an encouraging sign of reduced disparities in health-care access and quality. However, divergence in the working and post-working groups indicates that health-care access and quality is lagging at lower levels of social and economic development. To meet the needs of ageing populations, health systems need to improve health-care access and quality for working-age adults and older populations while continuing to realise gains among the young. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation