Background Various observations have suggested that the course of COVID-19 might be less favourable in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases receiving rituximab compared with those not receiving rituximab. We aimed to investigate whether treatment with rituximab is associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.Methods In this cohort study, we analysed data from the French RMD COVID-19 cohort, which included patients aged 18 years or older with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the severity of COVID-19 in patients treated with rituximab (rituximab group) compared with patients who did not receive rituximab (no rituximab group). Severe disease was defined as that requiring admission to an intensive care unit or leading to death. Secondary objectives were to analyse deaths and duration of hospital stay. The inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method was used to adjust for potential confounding factors (age, sex, arterial hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, body-mass index, interstitial lung disease, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, corticosteroid use, chronic renal failure, and the underlying disease [rheumatoid arthritis vs others]). Odds ratios and hazard ratios and their 95% CIs were calculated as effect size, by dividing the two population mean differences by their SD. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04353609.

No abstract

There are many potential drug interactions that involve the complex cytochromes P450 (CYP) enzyme system when treatments for chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases are used. This iatrogenic risk is increased in patients taking multiple drugs such as those with rheumatoid arthritis or gout, whatever the type of CYP interaction (substrate, inducer, or inhibitor of one of the CYP isoenzymes). Some of these CYP interactions may have clinical consequences, sometimes serious (overdose or therapeutic failure) and are often unrecognized by clinicians. The aim of this article is first of all to act as a reminder of the metabolic role of membrane-bound CYP enzymes in the liver in the oxidation of drugs and the potential types of interaction (drug substrate, inducer, or inhibitor or indirectly by the modulation of CYP activity through its powerful antiinflammatory activity). Secondly, the different factors that modulate the enzymatic activity of CYP will be described that may contribute to variations in drug metabolism and therefore modify the benefit-risk ratio of the drug. Thirdly, an analysis based on a review of the literature will present the different known interactions via CYP for drugs used in clinical practice in rheumatic diseases: analgesics, antiinflammatory drugs, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents. To limit the clinical consequences of these CYP interactions, it is recommended to focus on drugs that are really essential, to systematically identify the rheumatic patients most at risk before prescribing, and thus to adopt therapeutic strategies that reduce iatrogenic risk.

No abstract

BackgroundTelemedicine could be an innovative and sustainable response for rheumatologic advice in areas with low medical density. Improving coordination of investigations, access to allied health members and dedicated telehealth platform may improve the management of many rheumatologic patients.MethodsThis French TeleRheumatology project with multidisciplinary primary care centres was set up in 2019, specifically targeting the Burgundy region in Eastern France and was financed by the Regional Health Agency. Four rheumatologists from the Dijon University Hospital took turns to respond to the various requests for telemedicine (teleconsultation, teleexpertises) on a dedicated digital platform integrating a medical imaging viewer. In addition to the activity (number and type of procedures performed) and the distances avoided for the patient for rheumatology consultation, feasibility of this colaborative digital project was assessed on the basis of a participant satisfaction questionnaire (rheumatologists, general practitioners and patients).ResultsFrom October 2019 to january 2022, this TeleRheumatology project allowed the progressive integration of 23 primary care centres despite the concomitant COVID-19 crisis which slowed down the deployment. 212 procedures were performed (96% teleexpertises): 76% for mechanical disorders (spine 31%, osteoporosis 19%, osteoarthritis 15%), 18% for inflammatory rheumatism, 53% advice for diagnosis, 41% for management and/or therapy, 89% with imaging (X-Rays, CT- Scan, MRI) to be reviewed. The average response time was 16 hours and the average number of round-trip kilometers avoided was 216. Only 15% of the rheumatologic advices led to a face-to-face consultation or hospitalization at the University Rheumatology Department and 6% to other specialists. 97% of the patients would like to use this Telerheumatology program again (Satisfaction score: 9.1/10). 100% of the expert rheumatologists (satisfaction score 9.25/10) and the general practitioners (satisfaction score: 9.0/10) wanted to continue this digital health partnership in their daily practice.ConclusionDespite the inherent limitations of telemedicine (absence of clinical examination, technical barriers of interoperability, etc.), this french innovative TeleRheumatology project with primary care centres has shown encouraging results in terms of acceptability and satisfaction thanks to the coordination of the Regional Health agency and physicians’ motivations. Telerexpertise seems to be the preferred modality given its better practical feasibility. Approval and acceptance are increasing in the Rheumatology community because telemedicine appears to be an effective tool for improving health care access as demonstrated by its rapid expansion, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.References[1]Opportunities and Barriers of Telemedicine in Rheumatology: A Participatory, Mixed-Methods Study.Muehlensiepen F, Knitza J, Marquardt W, May S, Krusche M, Hueber A, Schwarz J, Vuillerme N, Heinze M, Welcker M. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Dec 13;18(24):13127.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared