Introduction The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought on challenges not only to acute care, but also chronic care of patients. Individuals maintained on immunosuppression appear to be especially susceptible to COVID-19 infection. Patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) frequently require immunosuppression and may be at increased risk for developing COVID-19. The incidence and impact of COVID-19 on patients with AAV is currently not known. We aimed to investigate this impact via a telephone questionnaire-based patient survey and chart review. Methods A cross-sectional study of AAV patients followed at two centers was conducted. Data regarding demographics, disease characteristics and therapy were confirmed by chart review. A telephone survey was conducted to ascertain symptoms and contact exposure related to COVID-19, as well as changes in health care delivery during the pandemic period between January and July, 2020. Results Of the 206 patients surveyed, the median age was 64 years, 51% were female and mean (SD) disease duration was 7 (5) years. The majority had kidney (n = 160) and lung (n = 108) involvement. Seventy-five percent (n = 155) were receiving immunosuppression, with 77 patients (50%) receiving rituximab during the pandemic period. Of the 10 patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) by PCR, three were positive. Patients had a significant disruption in care; none had an in-person visit and 69% had a telemedicine consultation. Rituximab maintenance was postponed in 21 patients. Twelve patients experienced disease relapse. Conclusion The incidence of COVID-19 in patients with AAV appears to be similar to that of the general population. For a patient population that requires active clinical surveillance, there is significant disruption in care as a result of the pandemic. Reduction of immunosuppression may not be indicated, and the risk of relapse likely far outweighs the risk of COVID-19.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed. Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise. This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ's website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

Direct primary care (DPC) is an emerging model of care distinguished by lower price points for quality comprehensive services. The affordability of DPC attracts a broad patient population that may encompass a wide range of socioeconomic needs. It is critical to identify social determinants of health (SDH) in DPC practices to design strategies aimed to mitigate social risk factors, especially for vulnerable populations that can only afford DPC. As part of this SDH screening initiative, the purpose of the present descriptive study was to assess the SDH characteristics of patients from an urban DPC clinic. To identify these SDH factors, a cohort of 31 patients from the DPC clinic was asked to complete a questionnaire from the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patient Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE). The survey outcomes revealed top socioeconomic needs in the domains of stress (77.4%), insurance (51.6%), social integration and support (38.7%), unmet medicine or healthcare needs (35.5%), and unemployment (32.2%). In adopting a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach, the research team shared the survey outcomes with the DPC clinic to facilitate improvements in overall patient care and implementation of services aimed to address social risk factors as identified in the study.

The interpretation of positive serologic findings in cancer sera remains controversial. Selected antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), such as anti-double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (dsDNA) and anti-Smith, are highly specific for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). On the other hand, the ANA titer is sensitive but not specific for SLE and has been reported in healthy individuals, various infections, other autoimmune diseases and cancer. We report for the first time positive anti-Smith antibody in two patients without lupus in the setting of lung cancer.

No abstract