Background: Treating rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) during pregnancy and breastfeeding presents significant complexities, mainly due to inconsistencies between the clinical guidance documents and the reference safety information, including the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) and the patient information leaflets (PIL). Objectives: To assess healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) prescribing behaviors, comfort levels, and challenges when advising patients, focusing on discrepancies between clinical guidance documents and SmPC/PIL. Design: Online survey entitled PRAISE (Perception of healthcare providers Regarding Antirheumatics in pregnancy and breastfeeding: advice, Information and patient perSpEctives) and disseminated through HCPs groups and social media. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 414 HCPs globally. Respondents were divided into prescribers ( n = 336) and non-prescribers ( n = 78) based on their self-reported role in prescribing antirheumatic medications to pregnant or breastfeeding patients with RMDs. The survey covered demographics, clinical experience, confidence in prescribing, use of clinical guidelines, and experiences managing conflicting information between guidelines and SmPC/PIL. Results: Prescribers were more likely than non-prescribers to feel comfortable discussing medication safety during pregnancy. Most prescribers found clinical guidance documents useful, with 48% rating them as “very useful” and 38% as “extremely useful.” In case of conflicting information between clinical guidance documents and SmPC/PIL, 58% of HCPs reported that it caused confusion and tension in patient–doctor relationships, and almost 20% of them are “likely” or “very likely” to discontinue ongoing treatment. Clear communication and shared decision-making were the most common strategies used to address patient concerns. Conclusion: HCPs often face significant challenges when advising patients with RMDs on the use of medications during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Conflicting information between clinical guidance documents and SmPC/PIL can disrupt patient–doctor relationship and lead to treatment discontinuation, with potential consequences on maternal disease control. Improved alignment between clinical guidance documents and the SmPC/PIL could enhance patient care and prevent confusion among HCPs and patients.

Background/Purpose : In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, whether patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal disease (RMD) treated with conventional (cs) or biologic (b) disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs) exhibit an adequate immune response to the currently available SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations remains a major concern. There is an urgent need for more SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy data to inform healthcare providers on the potential need for a booster vaccine. We established the ‘Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Danish Inflammatory Rheumatic Outpatients’ study (DECODIR) in March 2021 in order to assess and compare the immunoglobulin G (IgG response) of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer, Groton, CT, USA/BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) and mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna, Cambridge, MA, USA) administered as part of the national vaccine roll out in patients with RMDs, irrespective of treatment. Patients’ SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was used as proxy to determine vaccination response. Methods: The study is a longitudinal prospective cohort study in which the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response was measured and compared at baseline and at six weeks following vaccination. The study population consisted of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthropathies (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving their outpatient treatment at the Danish Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Sonderborg. Bloods, patient reported outcome measurements (PROMS), clinical data, and treatment information (cs/bDMARD) were collected at baseline/6 weeks and documented in the Danish DANBIO registry. Commercially available antibody tests (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA) were used, and SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were reported in EliA U/mL. Sufficient IgG response was defined as ≥10 EliA U/mL (manufacturers cut-off). Associations between antibody response, age, gender, disease (RA/PsA/SpA), no treatment or cs/bDMARD treatment, and disease activity were tested using proportional odds regression and bootstrapped tests of medians. Results were reported using mean, median (IqR), and bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI) of the median. Results: A total of 243 patients were included. We observed a significant increase in IgG levels (median of <0.7 EliA U/mL at baseline versus 34.5 EliA U/mL at 6 weeks). Seventy-two patients (32%) had an insufficient IgG response. The median IgG level in patients treated with cs/bDMARD combination therapy was significantly lower compared to patients without any DMARD treatment (12 EliA U/mL vs. 92 EilA U/mL (p < 0.01)). Conclusion: Patients treated with a combination of cs/bDMARD are at significantly higher risk of an inadequate response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as measured by IgG level compared to patients without DMARD treatment. IgG SARS-CoV-2 are only part of the immune response, and further data are urgently needed. At present, our results may inform healthcare providers and policy makers on the decision for the need of a booster vaccine in this particular patient group.