The impact of COVID-19 on rheumatology training—results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance trainee survey

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the clinical experiences, research opportunities and well-being of rheumatology trainees. / Methods: A voluntary, anonymous, Web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish or French from 19 August 2020 to 5 October 2020. Adult and paediatric rheumatology trainees were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales, the perceptions of trainees regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient care and redeployment, learning and supervision, research and well-being were assessed. / Results: There were 302 respondents from 33 countries, with 83% in adult rheumatology training. An increase in non-rheumatology clinical work was reported by 45%, with 68% of these having been redeployed to COVID-19. Overall, trainees reported a negative impact on their learning opportunities during rheumatology training, including outpatient clinics (79%), inpatient consultations (59%), didactic teaching (55%), procedures (53%), teaching opportunities (52%) and ultrasonography (36%). Impacts on research experiences were reported by 46% of respondents, with 39% of these reporting that COVID-19 negatively affected their ability to continue their pre-pandemic research. Burnout and increases in stress were reported by 50% and 68%, respectively. Physical health was negatively impacted by training programme changes in 25% of respondents. / Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on rheumatology training and trainee well-being. Our study highlights the extent of this impact on research opportunities and clinical care, which are highly relevant to future curriculum planning and the clinical learning environment

Prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey

OBJECTIVE: We investigated prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration, defined as lasting 28 days or longer, among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: We analysed data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey (2 April 2021-15 October 2021) to identify people with SARDs reporting test-confirmed COVID-19. Participants reported COVID-19 severity and symptom duration, sociodemographics and clinical characteristics. We reported the proportion experiencing prolonged symptom duration and investigated associations with baseline characteristics using logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 441 respondents with SARDs and COVID-19 (mean age 48.2 years, 83.7% female, 39.5% rheumatoid arthritis). The median COVID-19 symptom duration was 15 days (IQR 7, 25). Overall, 107 (24.2%) respondents had prolonged symptom duration (≥28 days); 42/429 (9.8%) reported symptoms lasting ≥90 days. Factors associated with higher odds of prolonged symptom duration included: hospitalisation for COVID-19 vs not hospitalised and mild acute symptoms (age-adjusted OR (aOR) 6.49, 95% CI 3.03 to 14.1), comorbidity count (aOR 1.11 per comorbidity, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21) and osteoarthritis (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.27). COVID-19 onset in 2021 vs June 2020 or earlier was associated with lower odds of prolonged symptom duration (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81). CONCLUSION: Most people with SARDs had complete symptom resolution by day 15 after COVID-19 onset. However, about 1 in 4 experienced COVID-19 symptom duration 28 days or longer; 1 in 10 experienced symptoms 90 days or longer. Future studies are needed to investigate the possible relationships between immunomodulating medications, SARD type/flare, vaccine doses and novel viral variants with prolonged COVID-19 symptoms and other postacute sequelae of COVID-19 among people with SARDs

A Worldwide Test of the Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preference-Matching

©American Psychological Association, [2024]. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. The final article is available, upon publication, at: [ARTICLE DOI]”Ideal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching (i.e., do people positively evaluate partners who match versus mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. First, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Second, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. This registered report—partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator—uses a highly powered design (N=10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The “corrected pattern metric” that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of β=.19 and an effect of β=.11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric. Specific traits in the “level metric” (interaction) tests revealed very small (average β=.04) effects. Effect sizes were similar for partnered participants who reported ideals before entering a relationship, and there was no consistent evidence that individual differences moderated any effects. Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men’s and (especially) women’s stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences (i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men’s stated preferences underestimated—and women’s stated preferences overestimated—revealed preferences. Implications for the literature on human mating are discussed.Unfunde

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

Rapid Adoption of Telemedicine in Rheumatology Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic Highlights Training and Supervision Concerns Among Rheumatology Trainees

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of telemedicine use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on rheumatology trainees. METHODS: A voluntary, anonymous, web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish, or French from August 19 to October 5, 2020. Adult and pediatric rheumatology trainees were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales, the survey assessed prior and current telemedicine use, impact on training, and supervision after COVID-19 prompted rapid telemedicine implementation. RESULTS: Surveys were received from 302 trainees from 33 countries, with 83% in adult rheumatology training programs. Reported telemedicine use increased from 13% before the pandemic to 82% during the pandemic. United States trainees predominantly used video visits, whereas outside the United States telemedicine was predominantly audio only. Most (65%) evaluated new patients using telemedicine. More respondents were comfortable using telemedicine for follow-up patients (69%) than for new patients (25%). Only 39% of respondents reported receiving telemedicine-focused training, including instruction on software, clinical skills, and billing, whereas more than half of United States trainees (59%) had training. Postconsultation verbal discussion was the most frequent form of supervision; 24% reported no supervision. Trainees found that telemedicine negatively impacted supervision (50%) and the quality of clinical teaching received (70%), with only 9% reporting a positive impact. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread uptake of telemedicine, a low proportion of trainees received telemedicine training, and many lacked comfort in evaluating patients, particularly new patients. Inadequate supervision and clinical teaching were areas of concern. If telemedicine remains in widespread use, ensuring appropriate trainee supervision and teaching should be prioritized