Exploring disease perception in Behçet's syndrome: combining a quantitative and a qualitative study based on a narrative medicine approach

BACKGROUND

Behçet Syndrome (BS) has a significant psychological and social impact on patients, caregivers and families. The present study aims at exploring disease perception in BS patients, using both a co-designed survey and the narrative medicine (NM) approach.

METHODS

An ad-hoc questionnaire was co-designed by clinicians expert in BS, BS patients and caregivers and BS adult patients were invited to answer the online questionnaires. Cluster analysis was used to analyse data from the survey and to identify groups of patients with diverse disease perception. To further explore real-life perspectives, the stories of illness of a smaller group of adult BS patients were anonymously collected online and analysed by means of text, sentiment and qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seven patients answered the survey and forty-three stories were collected. The cluster analysis highlighted that accepting or not the disease has a strong impact on the daily life, on how BS patients perceive themselves and in terms of hope for the future. The stories revealed that patients often address common issues, such as the long and complex journey faced from the disease onset until the BS diagnosis, which was strongly connected to the concept of time and perceived as an exhausting period of their lives.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study that addressed disease perception also applying the NM principles in BS. The current perception that BS patients have of their disease should encourage the BS scientific and patient community in joining forces in order to improve the journey of BS patients.

AB1410 IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON HEALTHCARE RESOURCE USE AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN A COHORT OF PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES- AN INTERIM ANALYSIS FROM THE PER-MAS PROJECT

Background

Management of the health emergency caused by COVID-19 pandemic majorly disrupted the delivery of healthcare services to patients with chronic conditions like Systemic Autoimmune Diseases (SAD), both because resources were mainly channeled towards the care of infected patients, but also because patients tended to avoid seeking medical care for fear of becoming infected. PER-MAS is a 2-year project aimed at assessing the clinical, psychopathological, and socio-economic impact of COVID-19 in a cohort of patients with SAD.

Objectives

To assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on drug withdrawal, disease flares and hospitalizations for disease exacerbation in a cohort of patients with SAD through an interim analysis of data from the PER-MAS project.

Methods

A sample of 214 consecutive patients was recruited in a reference center for rare and complex autoimmune diseases from April 2021 to January 2022. Inclusion criteria were definite diagnosis of SAD (Connective Tissue Disease (CTD), Inflammatory Arthritis (IA) or Vasculitis), regular follow-up and at least 2 years of disease. Patients were asked to fill out an extensive self-administered questionnaire on disease activity and healthcare resource use during the pandemic (March 2020-moment of assessment). Pre-pandemic (March 2019-February 2020) and early pandemic (March 2020-February 2021) clinical data were recorded through retrospective chart review and patient interview.

Results

At enrolment, 119 patients were affected by CTDs (55.6%), 71 by IA (33.18%), 24 by vasculitis (11.21%), with mean age 50.44± 12.97, and mean disease duration 11.17 ± 8.94. 30.37% took steroids, 39.7% hydroxychloroquine, 61.68% DMARDs, and 9.3% vasoactive drugs.

Overall, disease course was similar in pre-pandemic and early pandemic phase: in the first period, rheumatologic condition was stable in 57.35% of patients, persistently active in 27.3% and 35.61% had ≥ 1 episode of disease exacerbation (mean 0.665±1.15, range 0-6); in the second period, 60.56% of patients was stable, 24.88% persistently active, and 39.44% had ≥1 exacerbation (mean 0.49 ±0.77, range 0-4). Mean number of visits (2.56±2.57 and 2.61±2.79), hospitalizations (0.168±0.698 and 0.14±0.473, p=0.6), number of patients with outpatient visits=0 (7.47 vs 7%), and number of patients with ≥ 1 hospital admission (10.28 vs 11.6%) were also similar, while the number of patients with hospital admissions for disease exacerbation was significantly higher in the second period (6.1 vs 11.21%, p=0.001).

170 patients completed the survey: from March 2020 to enrolment, 18.2% suspended ≥1 anti-rheumatic drug (6.25% of them for fear of contracting COVID-19 disease, 15.6% for difficulty in obtaining medications), 20% self-managed ≥ 1 disease exacerbation, and 40% had ≥ 1 telemedicine consult. From March to July 2020, 41.76% had their visit rescheduled (35.23% for hospital access restrictions, 5.3% for travel restrictions, 1.17% for fear). Conversely, only 14.7% of patients had their visit rescheduled (8.23% for hospital access restrictions, 4.7% for other reasons) from July 2020 to enrolment.

Conclusion

In the early pandemic phase, overall disease course was similar to the pre-pandemic phase, but we observed an increase in the number of patients with ≥ 1 hospitalization for disease. Moreover, despite our efforts, patients reported a non-negligible rate of drug discontinuation for non-medical indication and difficulty to get access to rheumatologic consultation, highlighting the need of alternative organizational models in case of future pandemics.

Acknowledgements

Giulia Sacco for helping in patient recruitment and data management.

Disclosure of Interests

Francesca Trentin: None declared, Giovanni Fulvio: None declared, Gianni Andreozzi: None declared, Cosimo Cigolini: None declared, Mattia Da Rio: None declared, Valerio Dell’Oste: None declared, Elena Elefante: None declared, Federico Fattorini: None declared, Silvia Fonzetti: None declared, Valentina Lorenzoni: None declared, Michele Maffi: None declared, Inmaculada Concepción Navarro García: None declared, Ilaria Palla: None declared, Virginia Pedrinelli: None declared, Laura Scagnellato: None declared, Davide Schilirò: None declared, Anastasiya Valevich: None declared, Andrea Gaglioti: None declared, Claudia Carmassi: None declared, Chiara Tani: None declared, Liliana Dell’Osso: None declared, Giuseppe Turchetti: None declared, Marta Mosca Speakers bureau: Lilly, Astra Zeneca, GSK, Consultant of: Lilly, Astra Zeneca, GSK

OP0197 POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER AND SYMPTOMS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM THE PERMAS STUDY

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic, with its uncertainties, fears of contagion, mass lockdowns and containment measures, has dramatically impacted on people’s everyday lives leading to an increased risk of mental disorders, particularly Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Despite evidence in general population and healthcare workers1,2, scant data emerged on vulnerable populations, such as of patients with chronic illness, particularly rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs)3,4, who also underwent difficulties in the management and treatment of their disorders.

Objectives

To assess PTSD and post-traumatic stress symptoms in a sample of patients with RMDs, during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy.

Methods

PERMAS is a monocentric prospective observational study led by the Rheumatology Unit, the Psychiatric Clinic and the Institute of Management of the School of Advanced Studies. Patients with a RMD diagnosis, were consecutively enrolled from May 2021 to January 2022. During the visit, sociodemographic characteristics and psychopathological data were collected through online survey, whereas clinical data were collected by physician. The survey included the Trauma and Loss Spectrum- Self Report (TALS-SR) and the Impact of Event Scale- Revised (IES-R), aimed to assess symptomatological PTSD and post-traumatic stress symptoms related to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

A total of 194 eligible patients, with a mean age of 50.3±12.17 years, was included: 142 (73.19%) were females; 112 (57.74%) patients reported connective tissue diseases (CTD), 63 (32.47%) arthritis and 19 (9.8%) vasculitis. A total of 33 (17%) subjects reported a symptomatological PTSD by means of the TALS-SR. The prevalence of Partial PTSD (defined by at least 2 out of the 4 criteria for DSM-5 diagnosis of the disorder) was 56.7%, with significant higher rates among females (90, 81.8%) with respect to males (20, 18.2%) (p=.013). Accordingly, a IES-R mean total score of 21.90 ±15.98 was found in the total sample and a gender difference emerged, with higher mean scores among females rather than males (23.42 ±16.26 vs 21.90 ±15.98, p=.031).

Conclusion

The present findings point out high prevalence rates of symptomatological PTSD among patients suffering from RMDs, highlighting the potentially traumatic burden of the COVID-19 pandemic in this particular population, especially among females, suggesting the need of further investigations to address tailored prevention and intervention strategies.

References

[1]Fiorillo A, Sampogna G, Giallonardo V, Del Vecchio V, Luciano M, Albert U, Carmassi C, Carrà G, Cirulli F, Dell’Osso B, Nanni MG, Pompili M, Sani G, Tortorella A, Volpe U. Effects of the lockdown on the mental health of the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: Results from the COMET collaborative network. Eur Psychiatry 2020; 63(1), e87.

[2]Carmassi C, Dell’Oste V, Bui E, Foghi C, Bertelloni CA, Atti AR, Buselli R, Di Paolo M, Goracci A, Malacarne P, Nanni MG, Gesi C, Cerveri G, Dell’Osso L. The interplay between acute post-traumatic stress, depressive and anxiety symptoms on healthcare workers functioning during the COVID-19emergency: A multicenter study comparing regions with increasing pandemic incidence. J Affect Disord 2022; 298(Pt A), 209-216.

[3]Garrido-Cumbrera M, Marzo-Ortega H, Christen L, Plazuelo-Ramos P, Webb D, Jacklin C, Irwin S, Grange L, Makri S, Frazão Mateus E, Mingolla S, Antonopoulou K, Sanz-Gómez S, Correa-Fernández J, Carmona L, Navarro-Compán V. Assessment of impact of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in Europe: results from the REUMAVID study (phase 1). RMD 2021; 7(1), e001546. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001546

[4]Wang XA, Duculan R, Mancuso CA. Coping Mechanisms Mitigate Psychological Stress in Patients With Rheumatologic Diseases During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Clin Rheumatol 2021. doi: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000001757

Disclosure of Interests

Giovanni Fulvio: None declared, Virginia Pedrinelli: None declared, Gianni Andreozzi: None declared, Francesca Trentin: None declared, Sara Fantasia: None declared, Silvia Fonzetti: None declared, Chiara Fustini: None declared, Mattia Da Rio: None declared, Gabriele Cappellato: None declared, Cosimo Cigolini: None declared, Davide Schilirò: None declared, Michele Maffi: None declared, Laura Scagnellato: None declared, Anastasiya Valevich: None declared, Federico Fattorini: None declared, Inmaculada Concepción Navarro García: None declared, Ilaria Palla: None declared, Valentina Lorenzoni: None declared, Andrea Gaglioti: None declared, Claudia Carmassi: None declared, Chiara Tani: None declared, Giuseppe Turchetti: None declared, Liliana Dell’Osso: None declared, Marta Mosca Speakers bureau: Lillly, Astra Zeneca, GSK, Consultant of: Lillly, Astra Zeneca, GSK

Delayed diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis in HIV+ patients in Mozambique: A cost-effectiveness analysis of screening protocols based on four symptom screening, smear microscopy, urine LAM test and Xpert MTB/RIF

Background

Tuberculosis (TB) represents the ninth leading cause of death worldwide. In 2016 are estimated 1.3 million TB deaths among HIV negative people and an additional 374,000 deaths among HIV positive people. In 2016 are estimated 1.4 million new cases of TB in people living with HIV (PLHIV), 74% of whom were living in Africa. In light of these data, the reduction of mortality caused by TB in PLHIV is strongly required specially in low-income countries as Mozambique. According to international guidelines, the initial TB screening in HIV+ patients should be done with the four symptoms screening (4SS: fever, current cough, night sweats and weight loss). The diagnostic test more used in resource-limited countries is smear microscopy (SMEAR). World Health Organization (WHO) recommended Lateral Flow urine LipoArabinoMannan assay (LF-LAM) in immunocompromised patients; in 2010 WHO endorsed the use of Xpert Mycobacterium Tuberculosis/Rifampicin (MTB/RIF) test for rapid TB diagnosis but the assay is not used as screening test in all HIV+ patients irrespectively of symptoms due to cost and logistical barriers. The paper aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three screening protocols: standard (4SS and SMEAR in positive patients to 4SS); MTB/RIF; LF-LAM / MTB/RIF.

Methods

We developed a model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the MTB/RIF protocol versus the common standard and LF-LAM / MTB/RIF protocol. The model considered a sample of 1,000 HIV+ antiretroviral treatment naïve patients in Mozambique. We evaluated disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted for each protocol, cost per DALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), over 1-year, assuming a national healthcare system perspective. The model considered the delayed diagnosis as the time elapsed between a false negative test and the diagnosis and treatment of TB. Additional health system organization delay is defined as the time interval between positive test and treatment initiation caused by a delay in the delivery of results due organization of services. We conducted a sensitivity analysis on more relevant variables.

Results

The MTB/RIF protocol was cost-effective as compared to the standard protocol with an ICER of $56.54 per DALY saved. In a cohort of 1,000 patients MTB/RIF and LF-LAM / MTB/RIF protocol generated 1,281 and 1,254 DALY’s saved respectively, with a difference of 174 and 147 DALY respect to the standard protocol. The total cost of MTB/RIF protocol was lower ($92,263) than the standard ($147,226) and the LF-LAM / MTB/RIF ($113,196). Therefore, the cost per DALY saved including new infections due to delayed diagnosis with the standard protocol was $79.06, about 5 fold higher than MTB/RIF and LF-LAM / MTB/RIF protocols. The cost of additional TB infections due to delays in diagnosis plus health system delay seemed the more relevant costs. The low sensibility and sensitivity of the standard protocol led to a high number of false negatives, thus delayed TB diagnoses and treatment lead to the development of newly transmitted TB infections.

Conclusions

Our study shows that the MTB/RIF adoption could lead to an increasing of TB case-finding and a reduction in costs compared with standard and LF-LAM / MTB/RIF protocols.

Systematic review of the scientific literature on the economic evaluation of cochlear implants in adult patients

A systematic review of the economic literature of cochlear implants (CI) was conducted with the aim of summarizing the results of studies on the cost effectiveness of monolateral and bilateral (sequential/simultaneous) CI in adult patients affected by severe to profound prelingual and postlingual hearing impairment. The literature search was performed using "PubMed MEDLINE" and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination search engines. Inclusion criteria related to economic evaluation included primary studies published in English language from January 2000 to May 2010 and aimed to quantify costs of CI and compare monolateral CI vs. acoustic prosthesis and bilateral (sequential/ simultaneous) CI vs. monolateral CI in terms of cost per unit of effectiveness. Four articles were identified. The mean direct medical cost of the monolateral CI varied from € 30,026 to € 45,770 in postlingually deafened patients, and the cost of device represented the main cost component. Additional median costs of simultaneous and sequential bilateral CI were, respectively, € 21,831 and € 25,459. The mean direct medical cost of monolateral CI was € 31,942 in prelingually deafened patients. The monolateral CI in postlingually deafened patients represented a cost effective intervention as compared with no implant (€ /QALY varied from € 7,930, € 24,983 to € 33,094). Monolateral CI were not a cost effective intervention for traditional patients with more than 40 years of hearing impairment (€ 64,604/QALY ) or for patients with marginal benefits from using acoustic prosthesis with more than 30 years of hearing impairment (€ 106,267/QALY ). The cost effectiveness of monolateral CI worsened with increasing age (€ /QALY from € 23,439 for patients < 30 years old to € 55,369 for patients > 70 years). Bilateral CI in postlingually deafened patients were less cost effective than monolateral CI (from € 91,943/QALY to € 102,640/QALY ). Monolateral CI were cost effective in prelingually deafened patients (€ /QALY : € 8,096). Given the few economic evaluation studies in literature, future researches are needed to support the cost effectiveness results of CI in adults and to evaluate the cost effectiveness of bilateral CI, as well as to estimate the non-medical direct and indirect cost components.

Systematic review of the scientific literature on the economic evaluation of cochlear implants in paediatric patients

The aim of the study consists in a systematic review concerning the economic evaluation of cochlear implant (CI) in children by searching the main international clinical and economic electronic databases. All primary studies published in English from January 2000 to May 2010 were included. The types of studies selected concerned partial economic evaluation, including direct and indirect costs of cochlear implantation; complete economic evaluation, including minimization of costs, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) performed through observational and experimental studies. A total of 68 articles were obtained from the database research. Of these, 54 did not meet the inclusion criteria and were eliminated. After reading the abstracts of the 14 articles selected, 11 were considered eligible. The articles were then read in full text. Furthermore, 5 articles identified by bibliography research were added manually. After reading 16 of the selected articles, 9 were included in the review. With regard to the studies included, countries examined, objectives, study design, methodology, prospect of analysis adopted, temporal horizon, the cost categories analyzed strongly differ from one study to another. Cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and an analysis of educational costs associated with cochlear implants were performed. Regarding the cost analysis, only two articles reported both direct cost and indirect costs. The direct cost ranged between € 39,507 and € 68,235 (2011 values). The studies related to cost-effectiveness analysis were not easily comparable: one study reported a cost per QALY ranging between $ 5197 and $ 9209; another referred a cost of $ 2154 for QALY if benefits were not discounted, and $ 16,546 if discounted. Educational costs are significant, and increase with the level of hearing loss and type of school attended. This systematic review shows that the healthcare costs are high, but savings in terms of indirect and quality of life costs are also significant. Cochlear implantation in a paediatric age is cost-effective. The exiguity and heterogeneity of studies did not allow detailed comparative analysis of the studies included in the review.