POS1164 USE OF TELEMEDICINE FOR FOLLOW-UP OF SLE PATIENTS WITH NEPHRITIS IN THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK (“TeleSLE”): THE 6-MONTH RESULTS OF A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Background: Patients with lupus nephritis (LN) might be more susceptible to COVID-19 due to the underlying disease, co-morbidities and use of immunosuppressants. We hypothesized that telemedicine (TM) could be a well-accepted mode of health-care delivery minimizing the risk of exposure to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while maintaining disease control in these patients. Objectives: To evaluate the short-term patient satisfaction, compliance, disease control and infection risk of TM compared with standard in-person follow-up (FU) for patients with LN during COVID-19. Methods: This was a single-center randomized-controlled study. Consecutive patients followed at the LN clinic were randomized to either TM (TM group) or standard FU (SF group) in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the TM group received scheduled follow-ups via videoconferencing. SF group patients continued conventional in-person outpatient care. The 6-month data were compared. Results: From June to December 2020, 122 patients were randomized (TM: 60, SF: 62) and had attended at least 2 FU visits. There were no baseline differences, including SLEDAI-2k and proportion of patients in lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS), between the 2 groups except a higher physician global assessment score (PGA) in the TM group (mean 0.67±0.69 vs 0.45±0.60, p=0.003) (Table 1). The mean FU duration was 19.8±4.5 weeks. When comparing the most recent visit, the mean waiting time between entering the clinic waiting room (virtual or real) and seeing a rheumatologist (virtual or in-person) was significantly shorter in the TM group (22.5±28.6 vs 68.9±40.7 minutes, p< 0.001) (Figure 1A). The mean overall patient satisfaction score was higher in the TM group (mean 2.19±0.61 vs 1.89±0.78, p=0.042). The results of the post-consultation satisfaction questionnaire are shown in Figure 1B. The number of visits was similar in the two groups (TM: 3.1±1.3 vs SF: 3.0±1.2, p=0.981). However, there was a trend suggesting that alternative mode of FU was requested more frequently in the TM group than the SF group (TM: 12/60, 20.0% and SF: 5/62, 8.1%;p=0.057). More patients in the TM group had hospitalization (15/60, 25.0% vs 7/62, 11.3%;p=0.049) within the FU period, which was no longer statistically significant after adjusting for the baseline PGA. The proportions of patients remained in LLDAS were similar in the 2 groups (TM: 75.0% vs SF: 74.2%, p=0.919). None of the patients had COVID-19. Conclusion: TM resulted in better patient satisfaction and could achieve similar disease control in patients with LN in the short-term when compared to standard care.