Search

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund In den nächsten Jahren gehen viele Haus- bzw. Fachärzt:innen in den Ruhestand. Wie in anderen Disziplinen stellt sich in der Rheumatologie die Frage, ob ausreichend Weiterbildungsstellen zur Verfügung stehen, um das Versorgungsangebot bedarfsgerecht aufrechterhalten bzw. ausweiten zu können. Daher hat die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie (DGRh) ihre Kommission Fort- und Weiterbildung beauftragt, die aktuell zur Verfügung stehenden Weiterbildungsmöglichkeiten in Deutschland zu überprüfen. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist die Erfassung der Weiterbildungskapazität zur Fachärztin bzw. zum Facharzt für Innere Medizin und Rheumatologie. Methodik Im Rahmen dieser Studie erfolgte die Erhebung der Weiterbildungsbefugten, deren Tätigkeitsort und die Dauer von deren Weiterbildungsbefugnis über die Homepages der 17 Landesärztekammern. Basierend auf diesen Daten erfolgte dann eine deutschlandweite Umfrage zu den Weiterbildungsstellen. Ergebnisse Die Weiterbildung zum/zur Facharzt/Fachärztin für Rheumatologie erfolgte in Deutschland im Jahr 2021 an 229 Weiterbildungsorten. Dabei standen von 187 Weiterbildungsorten nähere Daten für eine Analyse zur Verfügung (81,7 %). Die Weiterbildungsorte verteilten sich dabei auf Kliniken (52,4 %) und Niederlassungen (47,6 %), wobei der Großteil (81,8 %) der insgesamt 478,4 Weiterbildungsstellen (Klinik: 391,4 und Niederlassung: 87) im Krankenhausbereich lag. Insgesamt waren zum Erhebungszeitpunkt 17,2 % aller Weiterbildungsstellen (Klinik: 11,4 % und Niederlassung: 43,1 %) nicht besetzt. Diskussion Die Studie zeigt, dass die meisten Weiterbildungsstellen in klinischen Einrichtungen vorhanden sind. Demgegenüber gibt es im niedergelassenen Bereich vergleichsweise wenige Weiterbildungsstellen, die zudem zur Hälfte nicht besetzt sind. Für eine optimale Nutzung bereits bestehender Weiterbildungskapazitäten müssen sektorübergreifende Weiterbildungskonzepte entwickelt und v. a. muss auch eine eigenständige Vergütung des Weiterbildungsaufwandes etabliert werden. In diesem Kontext muss eine gute rheumatologische Versorgung in ganz Deutschland dauerhaft gewährleistet sein, um den betroffenen ca. 2 Mio. Patienten mit entzündlich rheumatischen Erkrankung gerecht werden zu können.

In the next few years many general practitioners and specialists will retire. As in other disciplines the question arises in rheumatology whether sufficient training positions are available to maintain or expand the supply of care according to demand. Therefore, the German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh) has assigned its committee for education and training to review the currently available training opportunities in Germany. The aim of this work is the quantitative survey of the training capacity to become a specialist in internal medicine and rheumatology.Within the framework of this study, a survey was conducted via the homepages of the 17 state medical associations to determine the postgraduate medical officers, their place of work and the duration of their postgraduate training capabilities. Based on the data, a nationwide survey of training positions was conducted.Specialized rheumatology training is established at 229 training centers in Germany, whereby data from 187 training sites were available for analysis. The training locations are distributed as followed: 52.4% clinical sector and 47.6% outpatient sector. In total, 478.4 training positions are available in Germany (clinical sector: 391.4 and outpatient sector: 87) and 17.2% of the positions (clinical sector: 11.4% and outpatient sector: 43.1%) are not occupied.Based on this study, it can be shown that most of the continuing education positions are available in the clinical sector. In contrast, half of the training positions in the outpatient area are not filled. In order to improve the training situation, it is essential to integrate outpatient colleagues into the training program. This presupposes that further training is supported or financed by the healthcare system. In this context, optimal rheumatological care must be permanently guaranteed throughout Germany in order to provide sufficient care for the approximately 2 million patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.HINTERGRUND: In den nächsten Jahren gehen viele Haus- bzw. Fachärzt:innen in den Ruhestand. Wie in anderen Disziplinen stellt sich in der Rheumatologie die Frage, ob ausreichend Weiterbildungsstellen zur Verfügung stehen, um das Versorgungsangebot bedarfsgerecht aufrechterhalten bzw. ausweiten zu können. Daher hat die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie (DGRh) ihre Kommission Fort- und Weiterbildung beauftragt, die aktuell zur Verfügung stehenden Weiterbildungsmöglichkeiten in Deutschland zu überprüfen. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist die Erfassung der Weiterbildungskapazität zur Fachärztin bzw. zum Facharzt für Innere Medizin und Rheumatologie.Im Rahmen dieser Studie erfolgte die Erhebung der Weiterbildungsbefugten, deren Tätigkeitsort und die Dauer von deren Weiterbildungsbefugnis über die Homepages der 17 Landesärztekammern. Basierend auf diesen Daten erfolgte dann eine deutschlandweite Umfrage zu den Weiterbildungsstellen.Die Weiterbildung zum/zur Facharzt/Fachärztin für Rheumatologie erfolgte in Deutschland im Jahr 2021 an 229 Weiterbildungsorten. Dabei standen von 187 Weiterbildungsorten nähere Daten für eine Analyse zur Verfügung (81,7 %). Die Weiterbildungsorte verteilten sich dabei auf Kliniken (52,4 %) und Niederlassungen (47,6 %), wobei der Großteil (81,8 %) der insgesamt 478,4 Weiterbildungsstellen (Klinik: 391,4 und Niederlassung: 87) im Krankenhausbereich lag. Insgesamt waren zum Erhebungszeitpunkt 17,2 % aller Weiterbildungsstellen (Klinik: 11,4 % und Niederlassung: 43,1 %) nicht besetzt.Die Studie zeigt, dass die meisten Weiterbildungsstellen in klinischen Einrichtungen vorhanden sind. Demgegenüber gibt es im niedergelassenen Bereich vergleichsweise wenige Weiterbildungsstellen, die zudem zur Hälfte nicht besetzt sind. Für eine optimale Nutzung bereits bestehender Weiterbildungskapazitäten müssen sektorübergreifende Weiterbildungskonzepte entwickelt und v. a. muss auch eine eigenständige Vergütung des Weiterbildungsaufwandes etabliert werden. In diesem Kontext muss eine gute rheumatologische Versorgung in ganz Deutschland dauerhaft gewährleistet sein, um den betroffenen ca. 2 Mio. Patienten mit entzündlich rheumatischen Erkrankung gerecht werden zu können.

Um die Telemedizin erfolgreich in den rheumatologischen Alltag zu integrieren, sind sowohl die Patienten- als auch Arztperspektive wichtig. Hierzu wurde eine ausfuhrliche Studie mittels webbasierter Umfrage durch die Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Rheumatologie (DGRh) und die Deutsche Rheuma-Liga Bundesverband e. V. durchgefuhrt. Mittels Subgruppenanalyse der Daten im Hinblick auf die Videosprechstunde galt es nun herauszufinden, welche Anforderungen und Wunsche unter den Patienten/innen und Arzte/innen an die Videosprechstunde gestellt wurden. Die prospektive Umfrage wurde uber die sozialen Medien, QR-Code und E‑Mail verteilt. Es wurden deskriptive Statistiken und Regressionsanalysen in Bezug auf die Videosprechstunde durchgefuhrt und Korrelationen aufgezeigt. Die Daten zeigen eine positive Einstellung zur Videosprechstunde sowohl aufseiten der Patienten/innen (n = 299) als auch der Rheumatologen/innen (n = 129) auf. Eine Korrelation zwischen Alter und positiver Meinung zur Videosprechstunde zeigte sich unter den Patienten/innen (r = 0,161, p = 0,006), insbesondere bei den weiblichen Patienten fand sich mit zunehmendem Alter ein positiver Zuspruch fur die Videosprechstunde (r = 0,244, p

Im Mai 2018 wurde die Novellierung der (Muster‑)Weiterbildungsordnung (MWBO) fur die Facharztweiterbildung auf dem Deutschem Arztetag beschlossen, und somit stehen nun auch Anderungen fur die Rheumatologie an. Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, einen Uberblick uber die aktuelle Situation der arztlichen Weiterbildung im Fachgebiet der Rheumatologie zu gewinnen. Hierfur erfolgten sowohl eine quantitative als auch qualitative Analyse der rheumatologischen Facharztweiterbildung. Mittels schriftlicher Abfrage der Landesarztekammern wurde die Zahl der neu ausgebildeten Facharzte fur Rheumatologie in den Jahren 2015 bis 2017 ermittelt. Weiterhin wurde eine onlinebasierte Assistenzarztumfrage mit einem Fragebogen aus 22 Fragen erstellt und diese an 139 Chefarzte sowie Praxisinhaber deutschlandweit verschickt mit der Bitte, diese an ihre jeweiligen Assistenzarzte bzw. Facharzte zu verteilen. Zusatzlich wurde durch den Gebrauch der sozialen Medien sowie der Homepage und des E‑Mail-Verteilers von Rheumadocs e. V. eine breite Zielgruppe erreicht. Es beteiligten sich insgesamt 71 Arzte an der bundesweiten Umfrage. Laut Landesarztekammern absolvierten 53 Facharzte im Jahr 2015 und je 43 Facharzte fur 2016 und 2017 die Facharztprufung. In der Online-Umfrage der Assistenzarzte zeigte sich, dass die Befragten ihre Weiterbildung im Mittel mit der Note 3,1 (SD ± 1,1) beurteilten; 19,4 % der Teilnehmer gaben an, ein regelmasiges Mentoring zu erhalten, und bei 41,7 % der Arzte fanden Evaluationen am Arbeitsplatz statt. Defizite zeigten sich auch im Rahmen der praktischen Diagnostikfahigkeiten: 22,8 % der Befragten praktizierten laut Umfrage keine Gelenksonographie, und weitere 20 % fuhrten diese maximal 1‑mal monatlich durch. Nur 43,6 % der Befragten berichteten, dass sie mehr als 10 Gelenkpunktionen unter Anleitung durchgefuhrt hatten. Als offene Kritikpunkte* wurden von 46,6 % eine fehlende Struktur in der Weiterbildung genannt und 33,3 % bemangelten eine fehlende Supervision am Ausbildungsplatz. Positiv bewertet* wurden u. a. von 46,8 % die Vielfaltigkeit des Faches sowie von 17 % die Moglichkeit zum selbststandigen Arbeiten in der Rheumatologie. Die Mehrzahl der Befragten wunschte sich mehr Weiterbildungsoptionen, vermehrte Supervision sowie eine bessere praktische Ausbildung in der Ultraschalldiagnostik. Schlussfolgerung Die bundesweite Zahl der neu erworbenen Facharztqualifikation in der Rheumatologie zwischen den Jahren 2015 bis 2017 zeigt einen gleichbleibenden bis rucklaufigen Trend. Es ist zu befurchten, dass die Zahlen in den nachsten Jahren weiter stagnieren werden, weshalb es umso wichtiger ist, in die Qualitat der Weiterbildung zu investieren. Die Assistenzarztumfrage zeigte weiterhin, dass die aktuelle Weiterbildung in der Rheumatologie Defizite aufweist. Ein Leitfaden zur Verbesserung der Ausbildungsqualitat konnte die neue MWBO in der Rheumatologie sein, die Wege fur eine bessere und strukturierte Ausbildung schaffen soll. Dieses Curriculum sollte im Arbeits- bzw. Ausbildungsalltag fest im Sinne eines Teach-to-Target verwurzelt sein.

In order to successfully integrate telemedicine into the daily routine of rheumatology, both the patient's and the physician's perspective are important. For this purpose, a detailed study by means of a web-based survey was conducted by the Working Group Young Rheumatology (AGJR) of the German Society for Rheumatology (DGRh) and the German Rheumatism League National Association. By means of subgroup analysis of the data regarding video consultation, the aim was now to find out which requirements and wishes patients and physicians have for video consultations.The prospective survey was distributed via social media, QR code and email. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis related to video consultation were performed and correlations were shown.The data indicated positive attitudes toward video consultation on the part of both patients (n = 299) and rheumatologists (n = 129). A correlation between age and positive opinion of the video consultation was found among the patients (r = 0.161, p = 0.006), especially among female patients a positive approval of the video consultation was found with increasing age (r = 0.244, p 0.001 to male patients: r = -0.190, p = 0.145). Regarding the travelling time to the treating rheumatologist, male patients found the video consultation more attractive with increasing travelling time (r = 0.229, p = 0.078). With respect to the wishes of patients and physicians, video consultation should be used primarily for follow-up or emergency appointments. Video consultation for initial appointments, on the other hand, was very rarely mentioned.During the COVID 19 pandemic, video consultation was increasingly popular among rheumatology patients as well as among rheumatologists.EINLEITUNG: Um die Telemedizin erfolgreich in den rheumatologischen Alltag zu integrieren, sind sowohl die Patienten- als auch Arztperspektive wichtig. Hierzu wurde eine ausführliche Studie mittels webbasierter Umfrage durch die Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie (DGRh) und die Deutsche Rheuma-Liga Bundesverband e. V. durchgeführt. Mittels Subgruppenanalyse der Daten im Hinblick auf die Videosprechstunde galt es nun herauszufinden, welche Anforderungen und Wünsche unter den Patienten/innen und Ärzte/innen an die Videosprechstunde gestellt wurden.Die prospektive Umfrage wurde über die sozialen Medien, QR-Code und E‑Mail verteilt. Es wurden deskriptive Statistiken und Regressionsanalysen in Bezug auf die Videosprechstunde durchgeführt und Korrelationen aufgezeigt.Die Daten zeigen eine positive Einstellung zur Videosprechstunde sowohl aufseiten der Patienten/innen (n = 299) als auch der Rheumatologen/innen (n = 129) auf. Eine Korrelation zwischen Alter und positiver Meinung zur Videosprechstunde zeigte sich unter den Patienten/innen (r = 0,161, p = 0,006), insbesondere bei den weiblichen Patienten fand sich mit zunehmendem Alter ein positiver Zuspruch für die Videosprechstunde (r = 0,244, p 0,001 zu männlichen Patienten: r = −0,190, p = 0,145). Bezüglich der Fahrtzeit bis zum behandelnden Rheumatologen tendierten die männlichen Patienten mit zunehmender Fahrzeit zur Videosprechstunde (r = 0,229, p = 0,078), dies war jedoch nur schwach positiv. Hinsichtlich der Wünsche von Patienten/innen und Ärzten/innen sollte die Videosprechstunde v. a. für Folge- oder Notfalltermine genutzt werden. Eine Videosprechstunde für die Erstvorstellungen war hingegen nur sehr selten gewünscht.Während der COVID-19-Pandemie hat die Videosprechstunde zunehmenden Zuspruch unter den rheumatologischen Patienten/innen als auch unter den behandelnden Rheumatologen/innen erhalten.

ObjectiveTo analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatic patients’ and rheumatologists’ usage, preferences and perception of digital health applications (DHAs).MethodsA web-based national survey was developed by the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology and the German League against Rheumatism. The prospective survey was distributed via social media (Twitter, Instagram and Facebook), QR code and email. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and regression analyses were performed to show correlations.ResultsWe analysed the responses of 299 patients and 129 rheumatologists. Most patients (74%) and rheumatologists (76%) believed that DHAs are useful in the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and felt confident in their own usage thereof (90%; 86%). 38% of patients and 71% of rheumatologists reported that their attitude had changed positively towards DHAs and that their usage had increased due to COVID-19 (29%; 48%). The majority in both groups agreed on implementing virtual visits for follow-up appointments in stable disease conditions. The most reported advantages of DHAs were usage independent of time and place (76.6%; 77.5%). The main barriers were a lack of information on suitable, available DHAs (58.5%; 41.9%), poor usability (42.1% of patients) and a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of DHAs (23.2% of rheumatologists). Only a minority (ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic instigated an increase in patients’ and rheumatologists’ acceptance and usage of DHAs, possibly introducing a permanent paradigm shift in the management of RMDs.

Objectives: The prevalence of elbow joint arthritis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) assessed by ultrasound has not yet been investigated. Methods: We investigated 102 patients with RA and 50 patients without rheumatological disease. Both elbow joints were examined by ultrasound for effusion, hypervascularization, and enthesitis. A clinical examination was performed, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), and visual analog scale for pain (VASp) were recorded. Arthritis was defined as joint effusion (&ge, grade II) and synovial hyperperfusion. Results: The RA cohort versus the control group displayed a joint effusion in 54.9% vs. 6.9%, a hypervascularization in 6.8% vs. 0%. Arthritis was detected in 36 RA patients (35.29%) and no one in the control group. Four (3.8%) RA patients and one (1%) control displayed enthesitis. The RA cohort showed a significant correlation between movement restriction and joint effusion (p-value = 0.001) as well as DAS28 (p-value = 0.02) and between DAS28 and ultrasound detected arthritis (p-value = 0.022). In an overall analysis, a highly significant correlation of VASp with movement restriction (MR) (p-value &le, 0.001), the presence of joint effusion (p-value &le, 0.001), and the diagnosis of RA (p-value &le, 0.001) were observed. Interrater analysis of ultrasound imaging showed good agreement with Cohen&rsquo, s kappa of 0.896. Conclusion: The prevalence of elbow arthritis in RA seems to be high, with 35.29%. Movement restriction is a good indicator, but not in all RA patients (32 vs. 70 patients without MR) compared to the control group (5 vs. 45 patients without MR). Reported pain correlates with joint effusion and MR (p-value &le, 0.001).

Background:Digital health applications (DHAs) are gaining influence and promise great potential for the monitoring and management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).Objectives:To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on RMD patients’ and rheumatologists’ usage, preferences, and perception of digital health applications (DHAs) in Germany.Methods:A web-based national survey was developed by the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology and the German League against Rheumatism. The prospective survey was distributed via social media, QR-code, and email. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and regression analyses were performed to show correlations.Results:We analysed the responses of 299 patients and 129 rheumatologists. Most patients (74%) and rheumatologists (76%) believed that DHAs are useful in the management of RMDs and felt confident in their own usage thereof (90%; 86%). 38% of patients and 71% of rheumatologists reported that their attitude had changed positively towards DHAs and that their usage had increased due to COVID-19 (29%; 48%).Usage and recommendation of DHAs for both groups are shown in Figure 1:Figure 1.Usage or recommendation of digital health applications. Patients and rheumatologists were asked to indicate the specific digital health applications (DHAs) they used or were recommended.The majority in both groups agreed on implementing virtual visits for follow-up appointments in stable disease conditions. The most reported advantages of DHAs were usage independent of time and place (76.6%; 77.5%). The main barriers were a lack of information on suitable, available DHAs (58.5%; 41.9%), poor usability (42.1% of patients) and a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of DHAs (23.2% of rheumatologists) (Table 1).Table 1.Advantages and Barriers of DHA, n (%).AdvantagesBarriersPatientsRheumatologistsPatientsRheumatologistsLocation-Independence229 (76.6)100 (77.5)Too little information175 (58.5)54 (41.9)Time-independence223 (74.6)94 (72.9)Too little evidence of benefits36 (12.0)30 (23.3)Detailed documentation97 (32.4)47 (36.4)Poor quality of current apps47 (15.7)29 (22.5)Cost saving95 (31.8)37 (28.7)Concernsabout data protection52 (17.4)25 (19.4)More information88 (29.4)38 (29.5)Lack of usability126 (42.1)17 (13.2)Independenceof doctors+36 (12.0)-Lack of accessibility4 (1.3)-More flexibility107 (36.8)77 (59.7)High costs4 (1.3)23 (17.8)Preparationfor discussion+46 (15.4)-No suitable equipment17 (5.7)11 (8.5)No advantages at all18 (6.0)1 (0.8)Lack of user competenceNo Need9 (3.0)39 (13.0)-12 (9.3)Patients and rheumatologists were asked about the advantages and barriers of DHAs. Multiple answers were allowed. Patients had two additional potential advantages and potential barriers to choose from*.Only a minority (Conclusion:The COVID-19 pandemic instigated an increase in patients’ and rheumatologists’ acceptance and usage of DHAs, possibly introducing a permanent paradigm shift in the management of RMDs.Acknowledgements:The authors thank the following persons and societies for their great effort, distributing the online survey: P.Aries, A.Hueber, E.Feist, C.Fiehn, P.Korsten, I.Kötter, F.Mühlensiepen, A.Pfeil, M.Rudwaleit, M.Welcker, S.Zinke, Deutsche Vereinigung Morbus Bechterew e.V., Deutsche Rheuma-Liga Bundesverband e. V., Sklerodermie Selbsthilfe e.V.Disclosure of Interests:Anna Kernder: None declared, Harriet Morf: None declared, Philipp Klemm: None declared, Diana Vossen Speakers bureau: Novartis, Abbvie, Amgen, Consultant of: Abbvie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Celgene GmbH, Gilead Sciences Inc., Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Medac GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Deutschland GmbH, UCB Pharma GmbH, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Marco Meyer Consultant of: Medac, Isabell Haase Speakers bureau: Medac, Consultant of: Medac, Grant/research support from: UCB, Abbvie, BMS, Johanna Mucke Speakers bureau: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma Germany GmbH, Celgene GmbH, Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Deutschland GmbH and UCB Pharma GmbH., Consultant of: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma Germany GmbH, Celgene GmbH, Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Deutschland GmbH and UCB Pharma GmbH., Arnd Kleyer Shareholder of: yes, Speakers bureau: Lilly, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis BMS, Gilead,Janssen, Grant/research support from: Lilly, Novartis, Gilead,, Philipp Sewerin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Axiom Health, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai Pharma Marketing Ltd./Chugai Europe, Deutscher Psoriasis-Bund, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead Sciences, Hexal Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Medi-login, Mediri GmbH, Novartis Pharma, Onkowissen GmbH, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Sanofi-Genzyme, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (DFG), Deutscher Psoriasis-Bund, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead Sciences, Hexal Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, and UCB, Gerlinde Bendzuck: None declared, Sabine Eis: None declared, Johannes Knitza Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Lilly, Medac, BMS, Sanofi, Amgen, Gilead, UCB, ABATON, GSK, Grant/research support from: Novartis, UCB, Thermofisher, Sanofi, Martin Krusche Speakers bureau: Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Gilead, Medac, Novartis, Sobi, BMS, Amgen, GSK, Grant/research support from: Sanofi

BACKGROUND The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers among rheumatologists. OBJECTIVE This study aims to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the use of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified. METHODS Data were collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie [DGRh]) at the 2019 annual DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical adult rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey. RESULTS A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey, of which 107 (89.9%) reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 28 (25.5%) already used ePROs. Additionally, 44% (43/97) were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future. The most commonly cited reason for not switching was the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Respondents were asked to rate the features of ePROs on a scale of 0 to 100 (0=unimportant, 100=important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (mean 77.50) and simple data transfer to medical reports (mean 76.90). When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness, and patient global assessment as the most frequently used PROs. CONCLUSIONS The potential of ePROs is widely seen and there is great interest in them. Despite this, only a minority of physicians use ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing them was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Developers, patients, and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice.

Background The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers among rheumatologists. Objective This study aims to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the use of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified. Methods Data were collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie [DGRh]) at the 2019 annual DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical adult rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey. Results A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey, of which 107 (89.9%) reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 28 (25.5%) already used ePROs. Additionally, 44% (43/97) were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future. The most commonly cited reason for not switching was the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Respondents were asked to rate the features of ePROs on a scale of 0 to 100 (0=unimportant, 100=important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (mean 77.50) and simple data transfer to medical reports (mean 76.90). When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness, and patient global assessment as the most frequently used PROs. Conclusions The potential of ePROs is widely seen and there is great interest in them. Despite this, only a minority of physicians use ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing them was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Developers, patients, and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice.

BACKGROUND Chronic rheumatic diseases need long-term treatment and professional supervision. Mobile apps promise to improve the lives of patients and physicians. In routine practice, however, rheumatology apps are largely unknown and little is known about their quality and safety. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to provide an overview of mobile rheumatology apps currently available in German app stores, evaluate app quality using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), and compile brief, ready-to-use descriptions for patients and rheumatologists. METHODS The German App Store and Google Play store were systematically searched to identify German rheumatology mobile apps for patient and physician use. MARS was used to independently assess app quality by 8 physicians, 4 using Android and 4 using iOS smartphones. Apps were randomly assigned so that 4 apps were rated by all raters and the remaining apps were rated by two Android and two iOS users. Furthermore, brief app descriptions including app developers, app categories, and features were compiled to inform potential users and developers. RESULTS In total, 128 and 63 apps were identified in the German Google Play and App Store, respectively. After removing duplicates and only including apps that were available in both stores, 28 apps remained. Sixteen apps met the inclusion criteria, which were (1) German language, (2) availability in both app stores, (3) targeting patients or physicians as users, and (4) clearly including rheumatology or rheumatic diseases as subject matter. Exclusion criteria were (1) congress apps and (2) company apps with advertisements. Nine apps addressed patients and 7 apps addressed physicians. No clinical studies to support the effectiveness and safety of apps could be found. Pharmaceutical companies were the main developers of two apps. Rheuma Auszeit was the only app mainly developed by a patient organization. This app had the highest overall MARS score (4.19/5). Three out of 9 patient apps featured validated questionnaires. The median overall MARS score was 3.85/5, ranging from 2.81/5 to 4.19/5. One patient-targeted and one physician-targeted app had MARS scores >4/5. No significant rater gender or platform (iOS/Android) differences could be observed. The overall correlation between app store ratings and MARS scores was low and inconsistent between platforms. CONCLUSIONS To our knowledge, this is the first study that systematically identified and evaluated mobile apps in rheumatology for patients and physicians available in German app stores. We found a lack of supporting clinical studies, use of validated questionnaires, and involvement of academic developers. Overall app quality was heterogeneous. To create high-quality apps, closer cooperation led by patients and physicians is vital.

Background:The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs; yet, limited evidence exists regarding acceptance, usage and barriers among rheumatologists.Objectives:This study aimed to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the utilization of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identifiedMethods:Data was collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatologists of the German Society for Rheumatology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie (DGRh)) at the annual 2019 DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey.Results:A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey. 90% reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 25.5% already used ePROs. 44.3% were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future.The main reason for collecting PROs was for clinical decision making (66.4%), followed by research (39.5%), reimbursement (23.5%), internal quality management (21.9%) and patient satisfaction (16.8%). The most commonly cited reason for not switching to ePROs was the unawareness of suitable software solutions (figure 1).Respondents were asked to rate the features for ePROs on a scale of 0-100 (0 = unimportant, 100 = important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (score: 77.5), as well as the simple data transfer to medical reports (76.9) (table 1).When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness and physician global assessment (PGA) as the most frequently used PROs (figure 2).Table 1.Ratings for features of ePRO on a scale of 0-100 (0 = unimportant, 100 = important))QuestionmeanSDHow important would the graphic display be to you for ePROs?63.531.19How important would the automatic score calculation and display of ePROs be to you?77.527.64How important would the simple transfer of the ePROs in medical report be to you?76.930.07How important would an automatic alarm of yourself be for you if a critical threshold is exceeded by an ePRO?51.6533.5How important would an automatic alarm of the patient be for you if a critical threshold is exceeded by an ePRO?34.5530.61Figure 1.Reasons why ePROs are currently not used (multiple answers were possible for question)Figure 2.PROs being used in clinical practice and their respective frequencyConclusion:The potential of ePROs is widely seen, and there is a great interest in ePROs. Despite this, a minority of physicians only uses ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions.Developers, patients and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice.Disclosure of Interests:Martin Krusche Consultant of: Sanofi, Novartis and Medac, Speakers bureau: Roche/Chugai, Novartis, Sobi,, Philipp Klemm Consultant of: Lilly, Medac, Manuel Grahammer Shareholder of: MG is MD and shareholder of Abaton GmbH, Johanna Mucke: None declared, Diana Vossen Consultant of: Medac, Novartis, Abvie, Speakers bureau: Abvie, BMS, Arnd Kleyer Consultant of: Lilly, Gilead, Novartis,Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Lilly, Philipp Sewerin Grant/research support from: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KGBristol-Myers Squibb Celgene GmbHLilly Deutschland GmbHNovartis Pharma GmbH Pfizer Deutschland GmbHRheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Consultant of: AMGEN GmbH AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG Biogen GmbHBristol-Myers Squibb Celgene GmbH Chugai Pharma arketing Ltd. / Chugai Europe GmbHHexal Pharma Janssen-CilagGmbH Johnson & Johnson Deutschland GmbHLilly Deutschland GmbH / Lilly Europe / Lilly Global Novartis Pharma GmbH Pfizer Deutschland GmbH Roche Pharma Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr Sanofi-Genzyme Deutschland GmbH Swedish Orphan Biovitrum GmbH UCB Pharma GmbH, Speakers bureau: AMGEN GmbH AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG Biogen GmbHBristol-Myers Squibb Celgene GmbH Chugai Pharma arketing Ltd. / Chugai Europe GmbHHexal Pharma Janssen-CilagGmbH Johnson & Johnson Deutschland GmbHLilly Deutschland GmbH / Lilly Europe / Lilly Global Novartis Pharma GmbH Pfizer Deutschland GmbH Roche Pharma Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr Sanofi-Genzyme Deutschland GmbH Swedish Orphan Biovitrum GmbH UCB Pharma GmbH, Johannes Knitza Grant/research support from: Research Grant: Novartis

Background Chronic rheumatic diseases need long-term treatment and professional supervision. Mobile apps promise to improve the lives of patients and physicians. In routine practice, however, rheumatology apps are largely unknown and little is known about their quality and safety. Objective The aim of this study was to provide an overview of mobile rheumatology apps currently available in German app stores, evaluate app quality using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), and compile brief, ready-to-use descriptions for patients and rheumatologists. Methods The German App Store and Google Play store were systematically searched to identify German rheumatology mobile apps for patient and physician use. MARS was used to independently assess app quality by 8 physicians, 4 using Android and 4 using iOS smartphones. Apps were randomly assigned so that 4 apps were rated by all raters and the remaining apps were rated by two Android and two iOS users. Furthermore, brief app descriptions including app developers, app categories, and features were compiled to inform potential users and developers. Results In total, 128 and 63 apps were identified in the German Google Play and App Store, respectively. After removing duplicates and only including apps that were available in both stores, 28 apps remained. Sixteen apps met the inclusion criteria, which were (1) German language, (2) availability in both app stores, (3) targeting patients or physicians as users, and (4) clearly including rheumatology or rheumatic diseases as subject matter. Exclusion criteria were (1) congress apps and (2) company apps with advertisements. Nine apps addressed patients and 7 apps addressed physicians. No clinical studies to support the effectiveness and safety of apps could be found. Pharmaceutical companies were the main developers of two apps. Rheuma Auszeit was the only app mainly developed by a patient organization. This app had the highest overall MARS score (4.19/5). Three out of 9 patient apps featured validated questionnaires. The median overall MARS score was 3.85/5, ranging from 2.81/5 to 4.19/5. One patient-targeted and one physician-targeted app had MARS scores >4/5. No significant rater gender or platform (iOS/Android) differences could be observed. The overall correlation between app store ratings and MARS scores was low and inconsistent between platforms. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study that systematically identified and evaluated mobile apps in rheumatology for patients and physicians available in German app stores. We found a lack of supporting clinical studies, use of validated questionnaires, and involvement of academic developers. Overall app quality was heterogeneous. To create high-quality apps, closer cooperation led by patients and physicians is vital.

Background: The anti-cardiolipin and β2-glycoprotein I antibodies represent the important diagnostic parameters in routine autoimmune screening and represent the important diagnostic criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In this study, five different automated, semiautomated, and manual immunoassays detecting IgG/IgM anti-cardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies were tested. Methods: A total of 43 samples from the patients with SLE diagnosed in the rheumatology outpatient centers in Germany were included in this study. Results: For anticardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I, considerable differences in the percentage of the positive results were found between all the five methods, and the itemization of all the positive test results reached only a poor accordance. These findings were confirmed by Cohen’s κ coefficients. Conclusions: We found a moderate to poor accordance between the five different modern test systems for anticardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies. Such discrepancies can result in the clinical misinterpretation of data and may lead to wrong diagnoses. Therefore, further standardization of the tests for the antiphospholipid antibodies (APAs) is required.