Search

(1) Background: Immunological laboratory testing is known to be complex, and it is usually performed in tertiary referral centers. Many criticalities affect diagnostic immunological testing, such as limited availability, the need for specifically trained laboratory staff, and potential difficulties in collecting blood samples, especially in the most vulnerable patients, i.e., the elderly and children. For this reason, the identification of a new feasible and reliable methodology for autoantibody detection is urgently needed. (2) Methods: We designed a systematic review to investigate the available literature on the utilization of saliva samples for immunological testing. (3) Results: A total of 170 articles were identified. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, accounting for 1059 patients and 671 controls. The saliva collection method was mostly represented by passive drooling (11/18, 61%), and the most frequently described methodology for antibody detection was ELISA (12/18, 67%). The analysis included 392 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 161 with systemic lupus erythematosus, 131 with type 1 diabetes mellitus, 116 with primary biliary cholangitis, 100 with pemphigus vulgaris, 50 with bullous pemphigoids, 49 with Sjogren syndrome, 39 with celiac disease, 10 with primary antiphospholipid syndromes, 8 with undifferentiated connective tissue disease, 2 with systemic sclerosis, and 1 with autoimmune thyroiditis. The majority of the reviewed studies involved adequate controls, and saliva testing allowed for a clear distinction of patients (10/12 studies, 83%). More than half of the papers showed a correlation between saliva and serum results (10/18, 55%) for autoantibody detection, with varying rates of correlation, sensitivity, and specificity. Interestingly, many papers showed a correlation between saliva antibody results and clinical manifestations. (4) Conclusions: Saliva testing might represent an appealing alternative to serum-based testing for autoantibody detection, considering the correspondence with serum testing results and the correlation with clinical manifestations. Nonetheless, standardization of sample collection processing, maintenance, and detection methodology has yet to be fully addressed.

To support the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with tofacitinib, we designed the TuTOR (tailoring tofacitinib oral therapy in rheumatoid arthritis) mobile app. The impact of the app on medical adherence was evaluated using a crossover design alternating a paper-diary and the TuTOR App. Twenty patients with RA (mean age at inclusion, 59 ± 13 years) were included in the study. A statistically significant decrease in DAS28 was observed since the first month of therapy (mean DAS28 at baseline, 3.9 ± 1 vs. 1° month 3.1 ± 1, p = 0.0016). Similarly, the numerical rating scale (NRS) of perceived activity of disease and subjective fatigue progressively decreased. No differences were reported in DAS28 or NRS between the TuTOR app and the paper-diary groups. A significant decrease was observed in HAQ during the follow-up (baseline 1.38 ± 1.11 vs. six months 0.83 ± 0.9; p = 0.01). When filling out the self-reporting questionnaires, most of the patients (82%) preferred the TuTOR App helping them to remember to take the pills. Furthermore, 82% of patients used the app regularly (vs. 53% for the paper diary). Three patients suspended tofacitinib due to gastrointestinal intolerance. Both digital and paper devices can help maximize adherence to therapy; however, the TuTOR app was preferred by the patients for its simplicity and immediacy.