Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The magnitude and frequency of temporally related methotrexate (MTX)-associated side effects in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients are difficult to quantify using traditional research methods. As proof of concept designed in part to implement digital data collection for remote patient monitoring, we conducted a study implementing self-controlled case series analytic methods to understand MTX-related symptoms in RA or PsA. Methods: In study phase 1, adults with RA or PsA from the ArthritisPower® Registry (past or current oral MTX users) participated in a cross-sectional survey. In phase 2, current MTX users participated in a longitudinal study and completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) 1-day nausea/vomiting and fatigue measure. Within-person change in PROMIS scores between risk (6–36 h post-dose) and control (96–144 h post-dose) windows were compared using mixed models. Results: The baseline survey was completed by 671 participants (mean age: 54 years, 88% female, 92% white, 79% with RA). Among current MTX users (353/671 [53%]), most reported MTX-associated side effects (216/353 [61%]), most frequently fatigue (161/353 [46%]). Among phase 2 participants with (n = 39) and without (n = 84) baseline nausea, mean increase in PROMIS nausea was 5.1 units (P < 0.0001) and 0.7 units (P = 0.135), respectively; among those with (n = 51) and without (n = 72) baseline fatigue, mean increase in PROMIS fatigue was 3.9 units (P = 0.0003) and 0.4 units (P = 0.554), respectively. Conclusions: Digital remote patient monitoring presents an opportunity to detect and address medication tolerability in real time. Using a novel study design to control for between-person confounding, the magnitude of nausea and fatigue experienced by participants with RA and PsA temporally related to weekly MTX use was substantial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Aims were to 1) to characterize patient decision‐making with treatment for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and 2) to explore relationships among decision‐making, treatment satisfaction, and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Methods: ArthritisPower participants with physician‐diagnosed axSpA were invited to complete an online survey about their treatment and their most recent physician visit. Analysis compared treatment decision by satisfaction and bDMARD status. Results: Among the 274 participants, 87.2% were female, and the mean age was 50 years. Of participants, 79.5% had researched treatment before their most recent physician visit, and 56.9% discussed treatment change at their most recent physician visit. Of treatment‐change discussions, 69.2% of them were related to escalation, compared with deescalation (27.6%) and/or switching (39.1%). Among those participants who discussed a change, 73.7% agreed to it because they felt that their disease was not being controlled (54.9%) or felt that it could be better controlled on new treatment (20.3%). Top symptoms prompting change were back/buttock pain (63.3%), other joint pain (55.1%), and fatigue (54.1%). Among bDMARD‐treated participants (n = 128), important factors for treatment decisions were prevention of long‐term axSpA consequences (92.9%) and doctor's advice (87.5%). Among 43.4% of participants reporting treatment dissatisfaction, 37% did not discuss treatment change. Current bDMARD use was more common in satisfied (61.9%) than dissatisfied participants (26.9%). Conclusion: In this cross‐sectional study of a predominantly female axSpA population, patients frequently researched treatment options and discussed escalation with their providers. Under two‐thirds of participants who were dissatisfied with treatment discussed changes at their most recent visit. Current bDMARD use was associated with higher satisfaction, and bDMARD users considered prevention of long‐term consequences and doctor's advice to be very important for decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Critical technological advances have yielded a toolkit of HIV prevention strategies. This literature review sought to provide contextual and historical reflection needed to bridge the conceptual gap between clinical efficacy and community effectiveness (i.e. knowledge and usage) of existing HIV prevention options, especially in resource-poor settings. Methods: Between January 2015 and October 2015, we reviewed scholarly and grey literatures to define treatment literacy and health literacy and assess the current need for literacy related to HIV prevention. The review included searches in electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Permutations of the following search terms were used: 'treatment literacy,' 'treatment education,' 'health literacy,' and 'prevention literacy.' Through an iterative process of analyses and searches, titles and/or abstracts and reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed for additional articles, and historical content analyses of grey literature and websites were additionally conducted. Results and discussion: Treatment literacy was a well-established concept developed in the global South, which was later partially adopted by international agencies such as the World Health Organization. Treatment literacy emerged as more effective antiretroviral therapies became available. Developed from popular pedagogy and grassroots efforts during an intense struggle for treatment access, treatment literacy addressed the need to extend access to underserved communities and low-income settings that might otherwise be excluded from access. In contrast, prevention literacy is absent in the recent surge of new biomedical prevention strategies; prevention literacy was scarcely referenced and undertheorized in the available literature. Prevention efforts today include multimodal techniques, which jointly comprise a toolkit of biomedical, behavioural, and structural/environmental approaches. However, linkages to community advocacy and mobilization efforts are limited and unsustainable. Success of prevention efforts depends on equity of access, community-based ownership, and multilevel support structures to enable usage and sustainability. Conclusions: For existing HIV prevention efforts to be effective in 'real-world' settings, with limited resources, reflection on historical lessons and contextual realities (i.e. policies, financial constraints, and biomedical patents) indicated the need to extend principles developed for treatment access and treatment literacy, to support prevention literacy and prevention access as an integral part of the global response to HIV. Keywords: prevention literacy; treatment literacy; health literacy; HIV/AIDS; HIV prevention; AIDS expertise., Introduction Midway through the fourth decade of the HIV epidemic, there is room for cautious optimism. On World AIDS Day, 1 December 2015, UNAIDS triumphantly announced that 15.8 million people [...]

Objective: This study aimed to analyze the concerns and health‐related behaviors in patients with vasculitis during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic in North America. Methods: Patients with vasculitis in North America were invited to complete an online survey through the Vasculitis Patient‐Powered Research Network in collaboration with the Vasculitis Foundation and the Relapsing Polychondritis Foundation. Questions focused on concerns and behaviors related to doctors' visits, tests, medication, and telehealth use. Factors affecting their concern and health‐related behaviors were determined. Results: Data from 662 patients were included: 90% of patients were White, 78% were women, 83% expressed moderate or high levels of concern about COVID‐19, and 87% reported that their vasculitis moderately or extremely affected their level of concern. Older age, female sex, lung disease, and immunosuppression were associated with greater concern. Doctors' visits, laboratory tests, and other tests were avoided by 66%, 46%, and 40% of patients, respectively. Younger age, urban location, higher income, higher concern levels, and prednisone use (>10 mg/day) were associated with greater likelihood of avoiding visits or tests. Ten percent of patients on immunosuppressive therapy stopped their medication. Twenty‐nine percent patients on rituximab avoided an infusion. Forty‐four percent of patients had telehealth visits; more visits were reported for younger patients, for patients on glucocorticoids, and in Canada versus the United States. Conclusion: During the COVID‐19 pandemic, patients with vasculitis have high levels of concern and exhibit potentially harmful health‐related behaviors. Health care use varies across different demographic groups and geographic regions. Specific strategies are warranted to facilitate engagement of these patients with the health care system during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]