Search

Breakthrough COVID-19 (occurring in fully vaccinated people) has been described. Data on its characteristics among immune-mediated rheumatic disease (IMRD) patients are scarce. This study describes breakthrough COVID-19 occurring in IMRD patients participating in the SAFER-study, a Brazilian multicentric cohort evaluating the safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with autoimmune diseases. A descriptive analysis of the population and a binary logistic regression model were performed to evaluate the predictors of COVID-19-related hospitalization. A p -value < 0.05 was significant. The included 160 patients were predominantly females (83.1%), with a mean (SD) age of 40.23 (13.19) years. The patients received two (19%), three (70%), or four (11%) vaccine doses. The initial two-dose series was mainly with ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) (58%) or BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing) (34%). The first booster (n = 150) was with BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer) (63%) or ChAdOx1 (29%). The second booster (n = 112) was with BNT162b2 (40%) or ChAdOx1 (26%). The COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 17.5%. IMRD moderate/high activity (OR: 5.84; CI: 1.9-18.5; p = 0.002) and treatment with corticosteroids (OR: 2.94; CI: 1.02-8.49; p = 0.0043) were associated with higher odds of hospitalization, while increasing the number of vaccine doses was protective (OR: 0.37; CI: 0.15-0.9; p = 0.032). These findings, along with previous reassuring results about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, argue in favor of booster vaccination in IMRD patients.

Background: Patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs) have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination to mitigate the infection severity risks. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, especially those under immunosuppression or with associated comorbidities. However, few studies have assessed the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA., Objective: To evaluate the safety of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with RA., Methods: This data are from the study "Safety and Efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Diseases," a Brazilian multicentric prospective phase IV study to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine in IMRDs in Brazil. Adverse events (AEs) in patients with RA of all centers were assessed after two doses of ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) or CoronaVac (Sinovac/Butantan). Stratification of postvaccination AEs was performed using a diary, filled out daily and returned at the end of 28 days for each dose., Results: A total of 188 patients with RA were include, 90% female. CoronaVac was used in 109 patients and ChAdOx1 in 79. Only mild AEs were observed, mainly after the first dose. The most common AEs after the first dose were pain at the injection (46,7%), headache (39,4%), arthralgia (39,4%), myalgia (30,5%) and fatigue (26,6%), and ChAdOx1 had a higher frequency of pain at the injection (66% vs 32 %, p < 0.001) arthralgia (62% vs 22%, p < 0.001) and myalgia (45% vs 20%, p < 0.001) compared to CoronaVac. The more common AEs after the second dose were pain at the injection (37%), arthralgia (31%), myalgia (23%), headache (21%) and fatigue (18%). Arthralgia (41,4% vs 25%, p = 0.02) and pain at injection (51,4% vs 27%, p = 0.001) were more common with ChAdOx1. No serious AEs were related. With Regard to RA activity level, no significant difference was observed between the three time periods for both COVID-19 vaccines., Conclusion: In the comparison between the two immunizers in patients with RA, local reactions and musculoskeletal symptoms were more frequent with ChAdOx1 than with CoronaVac, especially after the first dose. In summary, the AE occurred mainly after the first dose, and were mild, like previous data from others immunizing agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Vaccination did not worsen the degree of disease activity., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Hip fractures in the older adults lead to increased morbidity and mortality. Although a low bone mineral density is considered the leading risk factor, it is essential to recognize other factors that could affect the risk of hip fractures. This study aims to evaluate the contribution of clinical characteristics, patient-reported outcomes, and muscle and aerobic capacity for hip fractures in community-dwelling older adults., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study with real world-data from subjects ≥ 60 years old attending an outpatient clinic in Minas Gerais, Brazil, from May 1, 2019, to August 22, 2022. Data about clinical characteristics (multimorbidity, medications of long-term use, sedative and or tricyclic medications, number of falls), patient-reported outcomes (self-perception of health, self-report of difficulty walking, self-report of vision problems, and self-report of falls) and muscle and aerobic capacity (calf circumference, body mass index, and gait speed) were retrieved from an electronic health record. The association of each potential risk factor and hip fracture was investigated by a multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for age and sex., Results: A total of 7,836 older adults were included with a median age of 80 years (IQR 72-86) and 5,702 (72.7%) were female. Hip fractures occurred in 121 (1.54%) patients. Multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk of hip fracture (OR = 1.12, 95%CI 1.06-1.18) and each episode of fall increased the chance of hip fracture by 1.7-fold (OR = 1.69, 95%CI 1.52-1.80). Patient-reported outcomes associated with increased fracture risk were regular or poor self-perception of health (OR = 1.59, 95%CI 1.06-2.37), self-report of walking difficulty (OR = 3.06, 95%CI 1.93-4.84), and self-report of falls (OR = 2.23, 95%CI 1.47-3.40). Body mass index and calf circumference were inversely associated with hip fractures (OR = 0.91, 95%CI 0.87-0.96 and OR = 0.93, 95%CI 0.88-0.97, respectively), while slow gait speed increased the chance of hip fractures by almost two-fold (OR = 1.80, 95%CI 1.22-2.66)., Conclusion: Our study reinforces the importance of identified risk factors for hip fracture in community-dwelling older adults beyond bone mineral density and available fracture risk assessment tools. Data obtained in primary care can help physicians, other health professionals, and public health policies to identify patients at increased risk of hip fractures., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are developed to align standards of health care around the world, aiming to reduce the incidence of misconducts and enabling more effective use of health resources. Considering the complexity, cost, and time involved in formulating CPG, strategies should be used to facilitate and guide authors through each step of this process. The main objective of this document is to present a methodological guide prepared by the Epidemiology Committee of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology for the elaboration of CPG in rheumatology. Through an extensive review of the literature, this study compiles the main practical recommendations regarding the following steps of CPG drafting: distribution of working groups, development of the research question, search, identification and selection of relevant studies, evidence synthesis and quality assessment of the body of evidence, the Delphi methodology for consensus achievement, presentation and dissemination of the recommendations, CPG quality assessment and updating. This methodological guide serves as an important tool for rheumatologists to develop reliable and high-quality CPG, standardizing clinical practices worldwide., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: To provide guidelines on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) to rheumatologists considering specific scenarios of the daily practice based on the shared-making decision (SMD) process., Methods: A task force was constituted by 24 rheumatologists (panel members), with clinical and research expertise in immunizations and infectious diseases in immunocompromised patients, endorsed by the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (BSR), to develop guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IMRD. A consensus was built through the Delphi method and involved four rounds of anonymous voting, where five options were used to determine the level of agreement (LOA), based on the Likert Scale: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree (neutral); (4) agree; and (5) strongly agree. Nineteen questions were addressed and discussed via teleconference to formulate the answers. In order to identify the relevant data on COVID-19 vaccines, a search with standardized descriptors and synonyms was performed on September 10th, 2021, of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and LILACS to identify studies of interest. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of nonrandomized studies., Results: All the nineteen questions-answers (Q&A) were approved by the BSR Task Force with more than 80% of panelists voting options 4-agree-and 5-strongly agree-, and a consensus was reached. These Guidelines were focused in SMD on the most appropriate timing for IMRD patients to get vaccinated to reach the adequate covid-19 vaccination response., Conclusion: These guidelines were developed by a BSR Task Force with a high LOA among panelists, based on the literature review of published studies and expert opinion for COVID-19 vaccination in IMRD patients. Noteworthy, in the pandemic period, up to the time of the review and the consensus process for this document, high-quality evidence was scarce. Thus, it is not a substitute for clinical judgment., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: In Brazil, we are facing an alarming epidemic scenario of Yellow fever (YF), which is reaching the most populous areas of the country in unvaccinated people. Vaccination is the only effective tool to prevent YF. In special situations, such as patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (CIMID), undergoing immunosuppressive therapy, as a higher risk of severe adverse events may occur, assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of the yellow fever vaccine (YFV) should be performed on an individual level. Faced with the scarcity of specific orientation on YFV for this special group of patients, the Brazilian Rheumatology Society (BRS) endorsed a project aiming the development of individualized YFV recommendations for patients with CIMID, guided by questions addressed by both medical professionals and patients, followed an internationally validated methodology (GIN-McMaster Guideline Development). Firstly, a systematic review was carried out and an expert panel formed to take part of the decision process, comprising BRS clinical practitioners, as well as individuals from the Brazilian Dermatology Society (BDS), Brazilian Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Study Group (GEDIIB), and specialists on infectious diseases and vaccination (from Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Immunizations National Societies); in addition, two representatives of patient groups were included as members of the panel. When the quality of the evidence was low or there was a lack of evidence to determine the recommendations, the decisions were based on the expert opinion panel and a Delphi approach was performed. A recommendation was accepted upon achieving ≥80% agreement among the panel, including the patient representatives. As a result, eight recommendations were developed regarding the safety of YFV in patients with CIMID, considering the immunosuppression degree conferred by the treatment used. It was not possible to establish recommendations on the effectiveness of YFV in these patients as there is no consistent evidence to support these recommendations., Conclusion: This paper approaches a real need, assessed by clinicians and patient care groups, to address specific questions on the management of YFV in patients with CIMID living or traveling to YF endemic areas, involving specialists from many areas together with patients, and might have global applicability, contributing to and supporting vaccination practices. We recommended a shared decision-making approach on taking or not the YFV.