Objective To determine health perceptions of patients with rheumatic diseases in the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Methods Rheumatology patients at a single center received via text message the Australian Rheumatology Association COVID‐19 information sheet and an invitation to participate in a deidentified survey. Patient concerns regarding risks conferred by their rheumatologic disease or medications, impact of receiving the information sheet on the likelihood of staying on medication, and acceptance of telehealth were ascertained. Results A total of 2,630 patients received the text message, and the survey response rate was 21% (n = 550). The mean ± SD age of the participants was 52 ± 15.2 years, and 75.3% were female. Participants’ highest ranked concern was that their medications would increase the severity of their COVID‐19 symptoms (76.1%). The highest levels of concern were seen in patients taking combination conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or a biologic/targeted synthetic DMARD. There was no association between prednisolone dose and concern. While 63% of patients planned to continue their antirheumatic medications, a further 30% were more likely to continue taking their medications because of receiving the information. Telehealth was acceptable to 98.4% of patients, but 28.1% felt this was only appropriate while infection control measures were in place. Conclusion Concerns regarding the risk of COVID‐19 among patients taking antirheumatic drugs are common. Proactive dissemination of information is needed to address misconceptions related to medication risk, improve medication adherence, and minimize the risk of flares. Telehealth is acceptable to most patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

No abstract

No abstract

FM continues to demonstrate a high prevalence in a population of RA patients. RA patients with FM have more symptoms of other chronic sensitivity syndromes in addition to FM. They have a lower quality of life outcome and higher medication use. This has important clinical implications in terms of diagnosis, response to therapy, prescribing choices and clinical outcomes.

Background Australian National human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Testing policy recommends HIV indicator condition‐based testing, adapted from the European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) guidelines. Aim To evaluate the extent that Australian non‐HIV specialty guidelines mention and recommend HIV testing in HIV indicator conditions. Methods EACS guidelines were reviewed to produce a list of 24 AIDS‐defining conditions (ADC) and 31 indicator conditions (IC) where HIV prevalence >0.1%, and 5 IC where HIV non‐diagnosis would have adverse effect on patients' management. Australian guidelines for these conditions were identified from websites of specialty societies, electronic Therapeutic Guidelines, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), state governments, MEDLINE and Google searches. We identified eight key IC as that were part of the HIDES I study. Results Overall, 51 ADC and IC had Australian guidelines: 24/51(47%) mention association with HIV and 14/51 (27%) recommend HIV testing. Twenty‐five out of 51 (49%) Australian guidelines were for ADC: 18/25(72%) mention association with HIV and 5/25 (20%) recommend testing. Twenty‐five out of 51 (49%) were guidelines IC with HIV prevalence of 0.1%: 6/25 (24%) mention HIV association and 8/25 (32%) recommend HIV testing. Two of eight (25%) key IC had no Australian guidelines and 3/8 (38%) do not mention HIV association or recommend HIV testing. Conclusions Although almost half of HIV non‐HIV guidelines for ADC and IC mention HIV association, only 27% specifically recommend HIV testing. This suggests partnership with guideline development and specialist groups may be useful to ensure patients diagnosed with ADC/IC are tested for HIV.