Search

Introduction: The growing recognition of holistic patient care highlights the various factors shaping the quality of life of individuals with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). Beyond the traditional disease measures, there is an emerging acknowledgment of the less-explored aspects, including subjective well-being, social determinants of health, comorbidities, mental health, and medication adherence. Moreover, digital health services have empowered patients to engage actively in decision-making alongside clinicians. To explore these domains within the context of AIRDs, the "Collating the Voice of People with Autoimmune Diseases" COVAD survey was conceived, a successor of the previous two COVAD surveys. In this document, we present the study protocol in comprehensive detail., Methods: The COVAD-3 survey is a cross-sectional patient self-reported e-survey incorporating multiple widely accepted scales/scores to assess various aspects of patients' lifestyles objectively. To ensure the survey's accuracy and usability across diverse regions, it will be translated into multiple languages and subjected to rigorous vetting and pilot testing. It will be distributed by collaborators via online platforms and data will be collected from patients with AIRDs, and healthy individuals over eight months. Data analysis will focus on outcome measures related to various social, demographic, economic, and psychological factors., Conclusion: With the increasing awareness to adopt a holistic treatment approach encompassing all avenues of life, the COVAD-3 survey aims to gain valuable insights into the impact of social, demographic, economic, and psychological determinants of health on the subjective well-being in patients with AIRDs, which will contribute to a better understanding of their overall health and well-being., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Despite the overall safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations, rare cases of systemic autoimmune diseases (SAIDs) have been reported post-vaccination. This study used a global survey to analyze SAIDs in susceptible individuals' post-vaccination., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among participants with self-reported new-onset SAIDs using the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) 2 study dataset-a validated, patient-reported e-survey-to analyze the long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Baseline characteristics of patients with new-onset SAIDs and vaccinated healthy controls (HCs) were compared after propensity score matching based on age and sex in a 1:4 ratio., Results: Of 16 750 individuals, 74 (median age 52 years, 79.9% females, and 76.7% Caucasians) had new-onset SAID post-vaccination, mainly idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) (n = 23, 31.51%), arthritis (n = 15; 20.53%), and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) (n = 12, 16.40%). Higher odds of new-onset SAIDs were noted among Caucasians (OR = 5.3; 95% CI = 2.9-9.7; p < .001) and Moderna vaccine recipients (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.3-5.3; p = .004). New-onset SAIDs were associated with AID multimorbidity (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.1-1.7; p < .001), mental health disorders (OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.3-1.9; p < .001), and mixed race (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.2-4.2; p = .010), where those aged >60 years (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4-0.8; p = .007) and from high/medium human development index (HDI) countries (compared to very high HDI) reported fewer events than HCs., Conclusion: This study reports a low occurrence of new-onset SAIDs following COVID-19 vaccination, primarily IIMs, PMR, and inflammatory arthritis. Identified risk factors included pre-existing AID multimorbidity, mental health diseases, and mixed race. Revaccination was well tolerated by most patients; therefore, we recommend continuing COVID-19 vaccination in the general population. However, long-term studies are needed to understand the autoimmune phenomena arising post-vaccination., (© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases published by Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Psychological and emotional well-being are critical aspects of overall health for individuals with chronic rheumatologic conditions. Mental health-related literature, however, predominantly focuses on systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis, with limited emphasis on idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs). High proportions of those with juvenile myositis report psychological distress at levels warranting mental health referral. Adults with dermatomyositis diagnosed with depression or anxiety do not receive adequate mental health care. Mental health symptoms in those with IIMs are associated with worse health-related quality of life, medication adherence, and disease outcomes. Despite demonstrated high rates of mental health burden, access to mental health care remains severely lacking.Data related to mental health burden is limited by small sample size, limited generalisability, variable methods of assessment, and inconsistent diagnosis codes to define mental health conditions. Additional research is needed to validate current screening tools in myositis populations. Other relevant measurable factors include disease severity, non-health- and health-related trauma exposure, loneliness, isolation, loss of control, sleep difficulties, fatigue, pain, self-esteem, body image, sexual health, and health inequities. Studiesare needed investigating the efficacy of therapeutic and pharmacologic interventions among patients with myositis who experience depression and anxiety. Currently, knowledge and resources are limited around mental health burden and potential intervention for those living with IIMs. The Myositis International Health & Research Collaborative Alliance (MIHRA) Psychological Impact Scientific Working Group offers a preliminary road map to characterise and prioritise the work ahead to understand baseline mental health burden and compare avenues for intervention.

No one is going to like everything that Kobert and Folan say in this article, but it offers a rich bouquet of ideas for discussion and debate. Are they right to assert that holism and nursing process are incompatible? That nursing process is associated with an immature level of professional development? That holism is the answer for nursing? That holism equates with feminism while nursing process represents a masculine reductionism?