A randomized prospective open-label controlled trial comparing the performance of a connected monitoring interface versus physical routine monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Home-Based Telemedicine in Rheumatology-A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

We performed a scoping review of the relevant literature on home-based telehealth in rheumatology to understand its appropriate application in rheumatology practice.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and scientific meeting abstracts to identify articles that specifically addressed telehealth suitability, barriers to telehealth, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected in telehealth settings, and telehealth satisfaction. From the initial search of 4,882 studies, 23 reports were included. In addition, 10 abstracts were also eligible for analysis, resulting in a total of 33 articles: 2 randomized clinical trials, 9 prospective cohort studies, and 22 retrospective studies.

RESULTS

We found that triage appointments or predictive models could be helpful in selecting patients for telehealth and that telehealth interventions were appropriate for follow-up of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and inflammatory arthritis, but that conducting new patient visits over telehealth was not ideal. Barriers to telehealth include patient factors (age, technology access) and need for physician/process factors (eg, physical examinations). PROs collected in regular practice can be incorporated into telehealth. Several small, single-center studies suggest that telehealth does not lead to negative outcomes compared with in-person visits, and overall, patients report high patient satisfaction with telehealth. In several scenarios, home-based telehealth was equivalent to in-person visits with regard to patient outcomes and satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The widespread potential of telehealth to manage and deliver care for people with rheumatic disease is significant. As such, further research in the form of randomized controlled trials can help contribute to growing evidence that shapes telehealth implementation for patients with rheumatic diseases.

Teleconsultation in rheumatology: A literature review and opinion paper

In this article, we review published literature on "telerheumatology", a term describing the use of telemedicine in rheumatology. This field has received considerable recent attention through the development of efficient digital technologies, resulting in a good level of satisfaction among patients and health care professionals. In 2020, the social distancing constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated more widespread adoption worldwide. Telerheumatology is particularly suited for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have achieved a sustained therapeutic target of remission or low disease activity. To facilitate remote consultations and meet expectations of rheumatologists and patients, international and national guidelines have recently been proposed and existing tools, such as Patient-Reported Outcomes questionnaires, have had to be digitally adapted. In addition, telerheumatology toolkits are proposed by the Arab League of Associations for Rheumatology (ArLAR), the Association of American Medical College (AAMC), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) for all learners, from medical students to practicing clinicians, encouraging the acquisition of telehealth skills and facilitating their integration into their routine clinical practice. The main benefits reported for this mode of health care are greater access to specialty care, flexibility, reduced rates of missed appointments, as well as improved patient engagement and autonomy. Limitations include the absence of physical examination. However, to implement telerheumatology effectively and widely in daily clinical practice, some barriers still need to be addressed. These include training of health care professionals, technological restrictions and reimbursement mechanisms. Despite the advantages of telerheumatology, it is not intended to replace face-to-face visits, but rather as a way to enhance access to care, service delivery and health care support for patients.

The Clinical Impact of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Remote Monitoring of Inflammatory Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The inflammatory arthritides (IAs) make up a significant proportion of conditions followed up in rheumatology clinics. These patients require regular monitoring, but this is increasingly difficult with rising patient numbers and demand on clinics. Our objective is to evaluate the clinical impact of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) as a digital remote-monitoring intervention on disease activity, treatment decisions, and health care resource use in patients with IA.

METHODS

Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched, with randomized controlled trials and (nonrandomized) controlled clinical trials included, and meta-analysis and forest plots conducted for each outcome. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias-2 tool and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included with a total of 4,473 patients, with seven studies assessing patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Compared with control, the disease activity in the ePROM group was lower (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.27 to -0.03) and rates of remission/low disease activity were higher (odds ratio1.65; 95% CI 1.02-2.68), but five of eight studies provided additional combined interventions (e.g., disease education). Fewer face to face visits were needed in the remote ePROM group (SMD -0.93; 95% CI -2.14-0.28).

CONCLUSION

Most studies were at high risk of bias with significant heterogeneity in design, but our results suggest there is an advantage in using ePROM monitoring in patients with IAs, with the potential for reduction in health care resource use without detrimental impact in disease outcomes.

Attitudes towards technology supported rheumatoid arthritis care: investigating patient- and clinician-perceived opportunities and barriers

Objectives

Globally, demand outstrips capacity in rheumatology services, making Mobile Health (mHealth) attractive, with the potential to improve access, empower patient self-management and save costs. Existing mHealth interventions have poor uptake by end users. This study was designed to understand existing challenges, opportunities and barriers for computer technology in the RA care pathway.

Methods

People with RA were recruited from Barts Health NHS Trust rheumatology clinics to complete paper questionnaires and clinicians were recruited from a variety of centres in the UK to complete an online questionnaire. Data collected included demographics, current technology use, challenges managing RA, RA medications and monitoring, clinic appointments, opportunities for technology and barriers to technology.

Results

A total of 109 patient and 41 clinician questionnaires were completed. A total of 83.5% of patients and 93.5% of clinicians use smartphones daily. However, only 25% had ever used an arthritis app and only 5% had persisted with one. Both groups identified managing pain, flares and RA medications as areas of existing need. Access to care, medication support and disease education were mutually agreeable opportunities; however, discrepancies existed between groups with clinicians prioritizing education over access, likely due to concerns of data overwhelm (80.6% considered this a barrier).

Conclusions

In spite of high technology use and willingness from both sides, our cohort did not utilize technology to support care, suggesting inadequacies in the existing software. The lack of an objective biomarker for RA disease activity, existing challenges in the healthcare system and the need for integration with existing technical systems were identified as the greatest barriers.

Trial registration

Registered on the Clinical Research Network registry (IRAS ID: 264690).

Controversies in rheumatology: telemedicine-friend or foe?

Telemedicine is increasingly used in rheumatology. While telemedicine guaranteed care of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is now increasingly used to facilitate triage of patients, monitoring of disease activity, and patients' education. In addition, tele-visits as well as remote physio- and psychotherapy are replacing traditional face-to-face contacts between patients and their healthcare provider. While this may save resources in a world in which the gap between the demand and the provision of healthcare increases, there is also a danger of losing essential information, for example by non-verbal communication, that can only be retrieved during face-to-face contact in the office. In addition, it may be challenging to build a trusting relationship between patients and healthcare professionals by virtual means only. Globally acting companies that see market opportunities already amply offer 'simple' technical solutions for telemedicine. While such solutions may seem (economically) interesting at first glance, there is a risk of monopolization, leaving the most valuable parts of healthcare to a small number of profit-seeking companies. In this article, the opportunities and threats of telemedicine in rheumatology are debated. A possible way forward is to complement traditional face-to-face visits with information gained by telemedicine, in order to render these consultations more efficient rather than replacing personal contact by technology.

A survey of artificial intelligence in rheumatoid arthritis

The article offers a survey of currently notable artificial intelligence methods (released between 2019-2023), with a particular emphasis on the latest advancements in detecting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at an early stage, providing early treatment, and managing the disease. We discussed challenges in these areas followed by specific artificial intelligence (AI) techniques and summarized advances, relevant strengths, and obstacles. Overall, the application of AI in the fields of RA has the potential to enable healthcare professionals to detect RA at an earlier stage, thereby facilitating timely intervention and better disease management. However, more research is required to confirm the precision and dependability of AI in RA, and several problems such as technological and ethical concerns related to these approaches must be resolved before their widespread adoption.

mHealth in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe: A systematic review comparing the use and availability of mHealth approaches in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe

Background

mHealth can help with healthcare service delivery for various health issues, but there's a significant gap in the availability and use of mHealth systems between sub-Saharan Africa and Europe, despite the ongoing digitalization of the global healthcare system.

Objective

This work aims to compare and investigate the use and availability of mHealth systems in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe, and identify gaps in current mHealth development and implementation in both regions.

Methods

The study adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for article search and selection to ensure an unbiased comparison between sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. Four databases (Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed) were used, and articles were evaluated based on predetermined criteria. Details on the mHealth system type, goal, patient type, health concern, and development stage were collected and recorded in a Microsoft Excel worksheet.

Results

The search query produced 1020 articles for sub-Saharan Africa and 2477 articles for Europe. After screening for eligibility, 86 articles for sub-Saharan Africa and 297 articles for Europe were included. To minimize bias, two reviewers conducted the article screening and data retrieval. Sub-Saharan Africa used SMS and call-based mHealth methods for consultation and diagnosis, mainly for young patients such as children and mothers, and for issues such as HIV, pregnancy, childbirth, and child care. Europe relied more on apps, sensors, and wearables for monitoring, with the elderly as the most common patient group, and the most common health issues being cardiovascular disease and heart failure.

Conclusion

Wearable technology and external sensors are heavily used in Europe, whereas they are seldom used in sub-Saharan Africa. More efforts should be made to use the mHealth system to improve health outcomes in both regions, incorporating more cutting-edge technologies like wearables internal and external sensors. Undertaking context-based studies, identifying determinants of mHealth systems use, and considering these determinants during mHealth system design could enhance mHealth availability and utilization.

Smartphone-Assisted Patient-Initiated Care Versus Usual Care in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Low Disease Activity: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

We developed a smartphone application for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that allows them to self-monitor their disease activity in between clinic visits by answering a weekly Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3. This study was undertaken to assess the safety (noninferiority in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR]) and efficacy (reduction in number of visits) of patient-initiated care assisted using a smartphone app, compared to usual care.

METHODS

A 12-month, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial was conducted in RA patients with low disease activity and without treatment changes in the past 6 months. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either app-supported patient-initiated care with a scheduled follow-up consultation after a year (app intervention group) or usual care. The coprimary outcome measures were noninferiority in terms of change in DAS28-ESR score after 12 months and the ratio of the mean number of consultations with rheumatologists between the groups. The noninferiority limit was 0.5 difference in DAS28-ESR between the groups.

RESULTS

Of the 103 randomized patients, 102 completed the study. After a year, noninferiority in terms of the DAS28-ESR score was established, as the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the mean ΔDAS28-ESR between the groups was within the noninferiority limit: -0.04 in favor of the app intervention group (95% CI -0.39, 0.30). The number of rheumatologist consultations was significantly lower in the app intervention group compared to the usual care group (mean ± SD 1.7 ± 1.8 versus 2.8 ± 1.4; visit ratio 0.62 [95% CI 0.47, 0.81]).

CONCLUSION

Patient-initiated care supported by smartphone self-monitoring was noninferior to usual care in terms of the ΔDAS28-ESR and led to a 38% reduction in rheumatologist consultations in RA patients with stable low disease activity.

Engagement and attrition with eHealth tools for remote monitoring in chronic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Although eHealth tools are potentially useful for remote disease monitoring, barriers include concerns of low engagement and high attrition. We aimed to summarise evidence on patients’ engagement and attrition with eHealth tools for remotely monitoring disease activity/impact in chronic arthritis.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted for original articles and abstracts published before September 2022. Eligible studies reported quantitative measures of patients’ engagement with eHealth instruments used for remote monitoring in chronic arthritis. Engagement rates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.

Results

Of 8246 references, 45 studies were included: 23 using smartphone applications, 13 evaluating wearable activity trackers, 7 using personal digital assistants, 6 including web-based platforms and 2 using short message service. Wearable-based studies mostly reported engagement as the proportion of days the tracker was worn (70% pooled across 6 studies). For other eHealth tools, engagement was mostly reported as completion rates for remote patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The pooled completion rate was 80%, although between-study heterogeneity was high (I² 93%) with significant differences between eHealth tools and frequency of PRO-collection. Engagement significantly decreased with longer study duration, but attrition varied across studies (0%–89%). Several predictors of higher engagement were reported. Data on the influence of PRO-reporting frequency were conflicting.

Conclusion

Generally high patient engagement was reported with eHealth tools for remote monitoring in chronic arthritis. However, we found considerable between-study heterogeneity and a relative lack of real-world data. Future studies should use standardised measures of engagement, preferably assessed in a daily practice setting.

Trial registeration number

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021267936).

Management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis by telemedicine: connected monitoring. A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a prevalent and disabling disease that is the source of significant direct and indirect costs. The current recommended therapeutic strategy is based on the rapid introduction of therapy with conventional Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) combined with regular disease monitoring by the rheumatologist. The onerous nature of such intense monitoring has motivated the development of new, less demanding strategies such as telemedicine. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the connected monitoring of RA patients initiating a new DMARD therapy versus conventional monitoring.

METHODS

An economic evaluation based on a randomized controlled trial of 89 patients was conducted. The patients in the intervention group (n=45) were monitored using a connected monitoring interface on a smartphone, while patients in the control group (n=44) were conventionally monitored. Health outcomes were measured as the gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), assessed using the EuroQol-5D questionnaire. Resource use and health outcomes were collected alongside the trial and at the six-month follow-up using application data and the related clinical case manager time, visits, hospitalisations, and transport records. These outcomes were valued using externally collected data on unit costs and QALY weights.

RESULTS

Compared to conventionally monitored patients, patients receiving connected monitoring had a slightly greater but not significant gain in the average QALY of 0.07. The economic analysis found that connected monitoring resulted in a significant cost reduction of 72€ (2927€ vs. 2999€, P<0.01). The incremental cost-utility ratio of the intervention was equal to -1,029€ per QALY (95% CI: -32,033; +24,625) with a 97.8% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of 30,000€ per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Implementing EULAR recommendations for RA patients initiating a DMARD treatment using connected monitoring is more efficient and less expensive than conventional care.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03005925).

Impact of a hybrid medical care model in the rheumatoid arthritis patient-reported outcomes: A non-inferiority crossover randomized study

OBJECTIVE

Patients and physicians can naturally adopt hybrid healthcare models that combine face-to-face consultations with telemedicine. The study's objective was to compare the impact of two healthcare interventions, hybrid care modality and face-to-face consultation, on the patient-reported outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis patients, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients reincorporated to a clinic previously in lockdown were invited to a non-inferiority, randomized study (October 2020--May 2022). Patients were randomized to 6 months of face-to-face consultation or hybrid care modality (intervention period-1) and then the converse modality (intervention period-2). The primary outcome was disease activity/severity behavior (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3). Additional patient-reported outcomes were disability (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index), quality-of-life (World Health Organization quality of life questionnaire-brief version), adherence and satisfaction with medical care, and treatment recommendation. Sample size calculation established 55 patients/healthcare interventions.

RESULTS

There were 138 patients invited to participate, 130 agreed and 121 completed their study participation. Sixty-one and 60 patients respectively, received face-to-face consultation and hybrid care modality over intervention period-1. Patients were primarily middle-aged females (90.1%), with (median, IQR) 12 (9-16) years of education, long-standing disease, working (62.8%), receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (96.7%), and corticosteroids (61.2%). Patients had low disease activity (median Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3: 2.7) and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score that translated into the absence of disability, while quality of life was compromised. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients assigned to each healthcare intervention. Differences in Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 behavior were below the non-inferiority margin. Results considered the order in which patients received the intervention and baselines scores, and extended to the patient-reported outcomes left.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid care modality was non-inferior to in-person consultations in achieving patient-reported outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Big data analyses and individual health profiling in the arena of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs)

Health care processes are under constant development and will need to embrace advances in technology and health science aiming to provide optimal care. Considering the perspective of increasing treatment options for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, but in many cases not reaching all treatment targets that matter to patients, care systems bare potential to improve on a holistic level. This review provides an overview of systems and technologies under evaluation over the past years that show potential to impact diagnosis and treatment of rheumatic diseases in about 10 years from now. We summarize initiatives and studies from the field of electronic health records, biobanking, remote monitoring, and artificial intelligence. The combination and implementation of these opportunities in daily clinical care will be key for a new era in care of our patients. This aims to inform rheumatologists and healthcare providers concerned with chronic inflammatory musculoskeletal conditions about current important and promising developments in science that might substantially impact the management processes of rheumatic diseases in the 2030s.

Effectiveness of remote care interventions: a systematic review informing the 2022 EULAR Points to Consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

Objective

To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) on different outcomes of remote care compared with face-to-face (F2F) care, its implementation into clinical practice and to identify drivers and barriers in order to inform a task force formulating the EULAR Points to Consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Methods

A search strategy was developed and run in Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently performed standardised data extraction, synthesis and risk of bias (RoB) assessment.

Results

A total of 2240 references were identified. Forty-seven of them fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Remote monitoring (n=35) was most frequently studied, with telephone/video calls being the most common mode of delivery (n=30). Of the 34 studies investigating outcomes of remote care, the majority addressed efficacy and user perception; 34% and 21% of them, respectively, reported a superiority of remote care as compared with F2F care. Time and cost savings were reported as major benefits, technical aspects as major drawback in the 13 studies that investigated drivers and barriers of remote care. No study addressed remote care implementation. The main limitation of the studies identified was the heterogeneity of outcomes and methods, as well as a substantial RoB (50% of studies with high RoB).

Conclusions

Remote care leads to similar or better results compared with F2F treatment concerning efficacy, safety, adherence and user perception outcomes, with the limitation of heterogeneity and considerable RoB of the available studies.

2022 EULAR points to consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

BACKGROUND

Remote care and telehealth have the potential to expand healthcare access, and the COVID-19 pandemic has called for alternative solutions to conventional face-to-face follow-up and monitoring. However, guidance is needed on the integration of telehealth into clinical care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD).

OBJECTIVE

To develop EULAR points to consider (PtC) for the development, prioritisation and implementation of telehealth for people with RMD.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary EULAR task force (TF) of 30 members from 14 European countries was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for development of PtC were followed. A systematic literature review was conducted to support the TF in formulating the PtC. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting.

RESULTS

Four overarching principles and nine PtC were formulated. The use of telehealth should be tailored to patient's needs and preferences. The healthcare team should have adequate equipment and training and have telecommunication skills. Telehealth can be used in screening for RMD as preassessment in the referral process, for disease monitoring and regulation of medication dosages and in some non-pharmacological interventions. People with RMD should be offered training in using telehealth, and barriers should be resolved whenever possible.The level of agreement to each statement ranged from 8.5 to 9.8/10.

CONCLUSION

The PtC have identified areas where telehealth could improve quality of care and increase healthcare access. Knowing about drivers and barriers of telehealth is a prerequisite to successfully establish remote care approaches in rheumatologic clinical practice.

Future challenges in rheumatology – is telemedicine the solution?

The COVID-19 pandemic has become an unprecedented facilitator of rapid telehealth expansion within rheumatology. Due to demographic shifts and workforce shortages in the future, new models of rheumatology care will be expected to emerge, with a growing footprint of telehealth interventions. Telehealth is already being used to monitor patients with rheumatic diseases and initial studies show good results in terms of safety and disease progression. It is being used as a tool for appointment prioritization and triage, and there is good evidence for using telehealth in rehabilitation, patient education and self-management interventions. Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) offer a number of long-term benefits and opportunities, and a routine collection of ePROs also facilitates epidemiological research that can inform future healthcare delivery. Telehealth solutions should be developed in close collaboration with all stakeholders, and the option of a telehealth visit must not deprive patients of the possibility to make use of a conventional ‘face-to-face’ visit. Future studies should especially focus on optimal models for rheumatology healthcare delivery to patients living in remote areas who are unable to use or access computer technology, and other patient groups at risk for disparity due to technical inequity and lack of knowledge.

Effects of e-health interventions on health outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of e-health interventions on disease activity, self-efficacy, pain and quality of life among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

BACKGROUND

Prior systematic reviews have only reported the quality and features of e-health interventions in patients with RA. However, the effect of e-health interventions in patients with RA is unclear.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

This review was conducted following the PRISMA guideline. We searched 5 databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and the Cochrane library. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The quality of the evidence was assessed via the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Using a random-effects model adopted the standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A chi-squared test and an I² test were used to assess heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on different controls.

RESULTS

A total of 9 randomised control trials were included in this study. Compared with the control group, disease activity of the e-health group significantly decreased (SMD with 95% CI: -.17 [-.30, -.04], p = .01, I²  = 1%). Meanwhile, trials with usual care control had a larger effect on disease activity (SMD with 95% CI: -.21 [-.40, -.02], p = .03, I²  = 38%). The effect of e-health interventions on self-efficacy was controversial; pain and quality of life were negative in the currently included studies. The quality of evidence was rated as low for disease activity and very low for pain, self-efficacy and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of e-health interventions on disease activity was statistically significant. More well-designed randomised controlled trials are still needed to verify the effects in the future.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study shows the potential value of e-health in improving health outcomes in patients with RA.

[Telemedical care and IT-based systems in rheumatology]

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and also the ever-increasing demands on the healthcare system, have led to a focus on the further development of telemedical services in rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE

What is the evidence for telemedical services in rheumatology?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Narrative review of existing literature on telemedicine in rheumatology.

RESULTS

Electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) can be determined by patients from their home and sent electronically to the rheumatologist. In future, ePROs may help with the decision whether a patient needs to attend the clinic for a visit or the visit can be rescheduled due to remission and well-being. Telemedicine has already been used for well-controlled patients with rheumatic diseases with good results in terms of safety and disease activity compared to conventional face-to-face visits. Telemedicine represents an interesting tool for appointment prioritization and triaging, while automated algorithm-based applications are currently too imprecise for routine clinical use. The role of smartphone applications in the care of patients with rheumatic diseases is still unclear.

DISCUSSION

Telemedicine represents an interesting option for certain patient populations with rheumatic diseases. Apart from research on the effectiveness and safety of telemedical interventions, decision makers need to set clear rules on how telemedicine should be used to provide the best possible care for the individual patient.

Validation of two simple patient-centered outcome measures for virtual monitoring of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis

BACKGROUND

Telemedicine has changed the landscape of patient care with wider use of patient-centered outcome measures (PCOMs). We evaluated two novel task-based PCOMs namely ten times arm lift (AL) test and two-minute walk distance (2MWD) in idiopathic myositis (IIM).

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study with the enrolment of adult IIM (ACR/EULAR criteria) patients with active/inactive disease. Active disease was defined as any two of increase in immunosuppression within 3 months, elevated muscle enzymes, physician VAS ≥ 2, worsened cutaneous disease, or fall in MMT8 < 76. Standard myositis core set measures (CSMs) were evaluated and test-retest validity [Cronbach's alfa (CA)], construct validity (Pearson's correlation), and discriminant validity (between active/inactive IIM) were assessed. The results were further validated in a separate tele-rheumatology cohort.

RESULTS

Among 22 IIM patients (68%-female) of age 30.5(19-62) years, AL and 2MWD showed excellent test-retest reliability (CA-0.987, 0.99). AL exhibited moderate-strong correlation with all CSMs except CK levels and MDI. In contrast, 2MWD values were highly variable without CSM correlation. A higher AL time discriminated active and inactive myositis (16.6 vs 11 s, p = 0.006) with an AUC of 0.882 (p = 0.006). AL > 12.8 s had 94% negative predictive value (NPV) for active muscle disease. In the validation cohort (47 patient visits among 26 patients), AL significantly differentiated between active vs. inactive disease with an NPV of 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

AL test exhibits pilot evidence of construct and discriminant validity in patients with IIM requiring further evaluation. 2MWD was not a good test for outcome evaluation of IIM patients. Key Points • Novel task-based patient-centered outcome measures were evaluated for remote monitoring of muscle strength in IIM. • Ten times arm lift (AL) test showed strong test-retest reliability as well as provide pilot evidence of construct and discriminant validity in patients with IIM unlike 2-min walk distance. • This provides preliminary evidence to further evaluate the role of AL as patient-centered outcome measure in patients with IIM for virtual clinical trials.

The Challenges of Telemedicine in Rheumatology

During the past 20 years, the development of telemedicine has accelerated due to the rapid advancement and implementation of more sophisticated connected technologies. In rheumatology, e-health interventions in the diagnosis, monitoring and mentoring of rheumatic diseases are applied in different forms: teleconsultation and telecommunications, mobile applications, mobile devices, digital therapy, and artificial intelligence or machine learning. Telemedicine offers several advantages, in particular by facilitating access to healthcare and providing personalized and continuous patient monitoring. However, some limitations remain to be solved, such as data security, legal problems, reimbursement method, accessibility, as well as the application of recommendations in the development of the tools.

The ideal mHealth-application for rheumatoid arthritis: qualitative findings from stakeholder focus groups

Background

Shifts in treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have made ambulatory care more labour-intensive. These developments have prompted innovative care models, including mobile health (mHealth) applications. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of mHealth-inexperienced stakeholders concerning these applications in RA care.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study by focus group interviews of stakeholders including RA patients, nurses specialised in RA care and rheumatologists. The qualitative analysis guide of Leuven (QUAGOL), which is based on grounded theory principles, was used to thematically analyse the data. In addition, the Persuasive Systems Design (PSD) model was used to structure recommended app-features.

Results

In total, 2 focus groups with nurses (total n = 16), 2 with patients (n = 17) and 2 with rheumatologists (n = 25) took place. Six overarching themes emerged from the analysis. Efficiency of care and enabling patient empowerment were the two themes considered as expected benefits of mHealth-use in practice by the stakeholders. In contrast, 4 themes emerged as possible barriers of mHealth-use: the burden of chronic app-use, motivational aspects, target group aspects, and legal and organisational requirements. Additionally, recommendations for an ideal mHealth-app could be structured into 4 domains (Primary Task Support, Dialogue Support, Social Support and System Credibility) according to the PSD-framework. Most recommended features were related to improving ease of use (Task Support) and System Credibility.

Conclusions

Although mHealth-apps were expected to improve care efficiency and stimulate patient empowerment, stakeholders were concerned that mHealth-app use could reinforce negative illness behaviour. For mHealth-apps to be successful in practice, challenges according to stakeholders were avoiding long-term poor compliance, finding the target audience and tailoring a legal and organisational framework. Finally, the ideal mHealth-application should above all be trustworthy and easy to use.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04624-8.