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.

BackgroundThe objective was to compare different definitions of remission and low disease activity (LDA) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), based on both patients’ and physicians’ perspectives.MethodsIn ReFlap (Remission/Flare in PsA; NCT03119805), adults with physician-confirmed PsA and >2 years of disease duration in 14 countries were included. Remission was defined as very low disease activity (VLDA), Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) ≤4, and physician-perceived and patient-perceived remission (specific question yes/no), and LDA as minimal disease activity (MDA), DAPSA <14, and physician-perceived and patient-perceived LDA. Frequencies of these definitions, their agreement (prevalence-adjusted kappa), and sensitivity and specificity versus patient-defined status were assessed cross-sectionally.ResultsOf 410 patients, the mean age (SD) was 53.9 (12.5) years, 50.7% were male, disease duration was 11.2 (8.2) years, 56.8% were on biologics, and remission/LDA was frequently attained: respectively, for remission from 12.4% (VLDA) to 36.1% (physician-perceived remission), and for LDA from 25.4% (MDA) to 43.9% (patient-perceived LDA). Thus, patient-perceived remission/LDA was frequent (65.4%). Agreement between patient-perceived remission/LDA and composite scores was moderate to good (kappa range, 0.12–0.65). When patient-perceived remission or LDA status is used as reference, DAPSA-defined remission/LDA and VLDA/MDA had a sensitivity of 73.1% and 51.5%, respectively, and a specificity of 76.8% and 88.0%, respectively. Physician-perceived remission/LDA using a single question was frequent (67.6%) but performed poorly against other definitions.ConclusionIn this unselected population, remission/LDA was frequently attained. VLDA/MDA was a more stringent definition than DAPSA-based remission/LDA. DAPSA-based remission/LDA performed better than VLDA/MDA to detect patient-defined remission or remission/LDA. Further studies of long-term outcomes are needed.

ObjectiveLack of adherence to treatment is frequent in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases and is associated with poorer outcomes. The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate interventions that have been proposed to enhance medication adherence in these conditions.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed in Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase and clinicaltrials.gov databases completed by the rheumatology meeting (ACR, EULAR and SFR) abstracts from last 2 years. All studies in English or French evaluating an intervention to improve medication adherence in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), crystal related diseases, connective tissue diseases, vasculitis and Still’s disease) were included. Interventions on adherence were collected and classified in five modalities (educational, behavioural, cognitive behavioural, multicomponent interventions or others).Results1325 abstracts were identified and 22 studies were finally included (18 studies in RA (72%), 4 studies in systemic lupus erythematosus (16%), 2 studies in SpA (8%) and 1 study in gout (4%)). On 13 randomised controlled trials (RCT) (1535 patients), only 5 were positive (774 patients). Educational interventions were the most represented and had the highest level of evidence: 8/13 RCT (62%, 1017 patients) and 4/8 were positive (50%). In these studies, each patient was individually informed or educated by different actors (physicians, pharmacists, nurses and so on). Supports and contents of these educational interventions were heterogenous.ConclusionDespite the importance of medication adherence in chronic inflammatory rheumatic disorders, evidence on interventions to improve medication adherence is scarce.

Using an evidence-based approach followed by expert consensus, this initiative should improve the assessment and optimization of adherence in chronic inflammatory rheumatic disorders.