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.

Background: Digital health studies using electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs), wearables, and clinical data to provide a more comprehensive picture of patient health. Methods: Newly initiated patients on upadacitinib or adalimumab for RA will be recruited from community settings in the Excellence NEtwork in RheumatoloGY (ENRGY) practice-based research network. Over the period of three to six months, three streams of data will be collected (1) linkable physician-derived data; (2) self-reported daily and weekly ePROs through the ArthritisPower registry app; and (3) biometric sensor data passively collected via wearable. These data will be analyzed to evaluate correlations among the three types of data and patient improvement on the newly initiated medication. Conclusions: Results from this study will provide valuable information regarding the relationships between physician data, wearable data, and ePROs in patients newly initiating an RA treatment, and demonstrate the feasibility of digital data capture for Remote Patient Monitoring of patients with rheumatic disease.

Objective Patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at greater risk of COVID‐19 infection and hospitalization, increasing the stress and uncertainty already associated with unpredictable conditions. These may be heightened for patients with ARDs from underrepresented minority backgrounds. This study aimed to explore patient experiences and ARD‐related challenges during the first year of the pandemic. Methods Between December 2020 and May 2021, 60‐minute semistructured interviews were conducted with English‐ and Spanish‐speaking adults, aged 18 years or older with self‐reported diagnosis of ARD, via phone or videoconferencing using an interview guide on living with an ARD during the pandemic. Analysis combined methods of phenomenology and content analysis through three steps: 1) summarizing interviews, 2) iteratively refining units of meaning, and 3) axial and selective coding to determine cross‐cutting themes. Study procedures were conducted by a multidisciplinary team, a majority also diagnosed with ARDs. Results The research team interviewed 22 patients (39.8 ± 15.7 years old; 82.8% female; 31.8% Hispanic or Latino/a/x) with ARDs. Themes included 1) information access and understanding, 2) problem solving access to health care, 3) balancing risks, and 4) mental health implications. Within these themes, patients from underrepresented minority backgrounds faced unique challenges. Conclusion Patients with ARDs require direct and timely communication about their risk of COVID‐19 morbidity and mortality and require increased support for psychosocial and ARD‐related implications of the pandemic. Health care systems must consider ways to support patients who are balancing chronic disease management with risk reduction for contracting emerging COVID‐19 variants.

Objective The study objective was to prioritize topics for future patient‐centered research to increase uptake of common vaccines, such as for pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza, herpes zoster, human papillomavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, among adults living with autoimmune conditions. Methods A steering committee (SC) was formed that included clinicians, patients, patient advocates, and researchers associated with rheumatic diseases (psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis), inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple sclerosis. Through a scoping review and discussions, SC members identified research topics regarding vaccine uptake and/or hesitancy for prioritization. A larger multistakeholder alliance that included patients and patient advocates, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, regulators, and vaccine manufacturers conducted a modified Delphi exercise online with three rating rounds and one ranking round. Frequency analysis and comparisons across stakeholder groups were conducted. A weighted ranking score was generated for each item in the ranking round for final prioritization. Results Through the Delphi process, 33 research topics were identified, of which 13 topics were rated as critical by more than 70% of all stakeholders (n = 31). The two highest ranked critical topics per the full stakeholder group were “How well a vaccine works for adults with autoimmune conditions” and “How beliefs about vaccine safety affect vaccine uptake.” Conclusion A multistakeholder group identified key topics as critically important priorities for future research to decrease vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake of vaccines for adults with autoimmune conditions.

BackgroundDigital health studies using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) and wearables bring new challenges, including the need for participants to consistently provide trial data. ObjectiveThis study aims to characterize the engagement, protocol adherence, and data completeness among participants with rheumatoid arthritis enrolled in the Digital Tracking of Arthritis Longitudinally (DIGITAL) study. MethodsParticipants were invited to participate in this app-based study, which included a 14-day run-in and an 84-day main study. In the run-in period, data were collected via the ArthritisPower mobile app to increase app familiarity and identify the individuals who were motivated to participate. Successful completers of the run-in period were mailed a wearable smartwatch, and automated and manual prompts were sent to participants, reminding them to complete app input or regularly wear and synchronize devices, respectively, during the main study. Study coordinators monitored participant data and contacted participants via email, SMS text messaging, and phone to resolve adherence issues per a priori rules, in which consecutive spans of missing data triggered participant contact. Adherence to data collection during the main study period was defined as providing requested data for >70% of 84 days (daily ePRO, ≥80% daily smartwatch data) or at least 9 of 12 weeks (weekly ePRO). ResultsOf the 470 participants expressing initial interest, 278 (59.1%) completed the run-in period and qualified for the main study. Over the 12-week main study period, 87.4% (243/278) of participants met the definition of adherence to protocol-specified data collection for weekly ePRO, and 57.2% (159/278) did so for daily ePRO. For smartwatch data, 81.7% (227/278) of the participants adhered to the protocol-specified data collection. In total, 52.9% (147/278) of the participants met composite adherence. ConclusionsCompared with other digital health rheumatoid arthritis studies, a short run-in period appears useful for identifying participants likely to engage in a study that collects data via a mobile app and wearables and gives participants time to acclimate to study requirements. Automated or manual prompts (ie, “It’s time to sync your smartwatch”) may be necessary to optimize adherence. Adherence varies by data collection type (eg, ePRO vs smartwatch data). International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.2196/14665

Objective Uptake of treat-to-target (TTT) strategies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management is low. Our objective was to understand the heterogeneity in patients’ conceptualisation of RA treatment to inform interventions improving TTT uptake.Design Eligible participants recruited from an online research registry rated 56 items (on 5-point scales) reflecting concepts raised from patient interviews. Using items describing adhering to physician recommendations to create a binary criterion variable for medication adherence, we conducted a principal components analysis on the remaining items using Varimax rotation, describing how these factors predict adherence over and above demographic characteristics. We further use optimal sets in regression to identify the individual concepts that are most predictive of medication adherence.Results We found significant heterogeneity in patients’ conceptualisation of RA treatment among 621 persons with RA. A scree plot revealed a four-factor solution explained 38.4% of the variance. The four factors expected to facilitate TTT uptake were (% variance explained): (1) Access to high quality care and support (11.3%); (2) low decisional conflict related to changing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (10.1%); (3) endorsement of a favourable DMARD risk/benefit ratio (9.9%); and (4) confidence that testing reflects disease activity (7.2%). These factors account for 13.8% of the variance in full medication adherence, fully explaining the only significant demographic predictor, age of the patient. The individual items most predictive of poor adherence centre on the lack of effective patient–physician communication, specifically insufficient access to information from rheumatologists, along with the need to seek information elsewhere.Conclusion Patients’ conceptualisation of RA treatment varies; however, almost all patients have difficulty escalating DMARDs, even with access to quality information and an understanding of the benefits of TTT. Tailored interventions are needed to address patient hesitancy to escalate DMARDs.

Abstract Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of death among people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with an estimated increased risk of 50–60% compared to the general population. Lipid-lowering strategies have been shown to lower CVD risk significantly in people with RA and hyperlipidemia. Thus, CVD risk assessment has an important role to play in reducing CVD among people with RA. Yet currently only 37 to 45% of this population are receiving primary lipids screening. This paper describes the CArdiovascular Risk assEssment for RA (CARE RA) intervention, which is designed to address this issue. CARE RA is a peer coach intervention, that is, an intervention in which a person with RA coaches another person with RA, which is designed to educate people with RA about the relation between RA and CVD risk and to help them obtain evidence-based CVD risk assessment and treatment. Methods This is an open-label pilot study that will test if the participants assigned to complete the CARE RA curriculum with a peer coach will receive a cardiovascular risk assessment more frequently compared to those that complete the CARE RA curriculum by themselves. The CARE RA intervention is guided by Social Cognitive Theory. Participants in the peer coach intervention arm will receive the assistance of a peer coach who will call the participants once a week for 5 weeks to go over the CARE RA curriculum and train them on how to obtain CVD risk assessment. The control arm will complete the CARE RA curriculum without any assistance. Participants will be randomized 1:1 either to the control arm or to the peer coach intervention arm. The primary outcome is a participant’s having a CVD risk assessment or initiating a statin, if indicated. Secondary outcomes include patient activation and RA medication adherence. The RE-AIM implementation framework guides the implementation and evaluation of the intervention. Discussion This pilot study will test the feasibility of the peer coach intervention in anticipation of a larger trial. CARE RA pioneers the use of peer coaches to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based treatment guidelines among people with RA. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04488497 . Registered on July 28, 2020.

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.

Background We aimed to compare concerns, social distancing, health care disruptions, and telemedicine use in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) and non‐ARD and to evaluate factors associated with immunomodulatory medication interruptions. Methods Patients in a multistate community rheumatology practice network completed surveys from April 2020 to May 2020. Adults with common ARD (rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus) or non‐ARD (gout, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis) were evaluated. Concerns about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), social distancing, health care disruptions, and telemedicine use were compared in patients with ARD versus non‐ARD, adjusting for demographics, rural residence, and zipcode‐based measures of socioeconomic status and COVID‐19 activity. Factors associated with medication interruptions were assessed in patients with ARD. Results Surveys were completed by 2319/36 193 (6.4%) patients with non‐ARD and 6885/64 303 (10.7%) with ARD. Concerns about COVID‐19 and social distancing behaviors were similar in both groups, although patients receiving a biologic or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor reported greater concerns and were more likely to avoid friends/family, stores, or leaving the house. Patients with ARD were less likely to avoid office visits (45.2% vs. 51.0%, odds ratio [OR] 0.79 [0.70‐0.89]) with similar telemedicine use. Immunomodulatory medications were stopped in 9.7% of patients with ARD, usually (86.9%) without a physician recommendation. Compared with patients with an office visit, the likelihood of stopping medication was higher for patients with a telemedicine visit (OR 1.54 [1.19‐1.99]) but highest for patients with no visits (OR 2.26 [1.79‐2.86]). Conclusion Patients with ARD and non‐ARD reported similar concerns about COVID‐19 and similar social distancing behaviors. Missed office visits were strongly associated with interruptions in immunomodulatory medication.

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to track symptoms and to assess disease activity, quality of life, and treatment effectiveness. It is therefore important to understand which PROs patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease consider most important to track for disease management. Methods Adult US patients within the ArthritisPower registry with ankylosing spondylitis, fibromyalgia syndrome, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus were invited to select between 3 and 10 PRO symptom measures they felt were important to digitally track for their condition via the ArthritisPower app. Over the next 3 months, participants (pts) were given the option to continue tracking their previously selected measures or to remove/add measures at 3 subsequent monthly time points (month [m] 1, m2, m3). At m3, pts prioritized up to 5 measures. Measures were rank-ordered, summed, and weighted based on pts rating to produce a summary score for each PRO measure. Results Among pts who completed initial selection of PRO assessments at baseline (N = 253), 140 pts confirmed or changed PRO selections across m1–3 within the specified monthly time window (28 days ± 7). PROs ranked as most important for tracking were PROMIS Fatigue, Physical Function, Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, Duration of Morning Joint Stiffness, and Sleep Disturbance. Patient’s preferences regarding the importance of these PROs were stable over time. Conclusion The symptoms that rheumatology patients prioritized for longitudinal tracking using a smartphone app were fatigue, physical function, pain, and morning joint stiffness.

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 Background There are limited real-world data on the diagnostic experiences of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), including medical care sought and potential barriers to diagnosis. We aim to describe patient experiences related to receiving a PsA diagnosis. Methods Ours was a mixed-method, 2-phase study. Phase 1 comprised concept elicitation and cognitive interviews with clinical experts and adults diagnosed with PsA to develop a cross sectional, web-based survey. US adults with a self-reported PsA diagnosis were recruited through a patient support community (CreakyJoints), an online patient research registry (ArthritisPower), and social media outreach. In Phase 2, the online survey collected data on sociodemographics, clinical symptoms, disease burden, and diagnosis history of survey respondents with PsA. Results Of the 203 respondents included, 172 (84.7%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 51.6 (10.8) years. The time between seeking medical attention and receiving a diagnosis was

Abstract Background Few studies have investigated patients’ own treatment goals in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this real-world, cross-sectional study of US patients with RA was to identify factors that patients believed influenced their physician’s treatment decisions. Secondary objectives included reasons patients tolerated sub-optimal disease control and their perceived barriers to treatment optimization. Methods Eligible participants were enrolled in the ArthritisPower registry, ≥ 19 years, had physician-diagnosed RA, unchanged treatment within 3 months of baseline, prior/current disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment (DMARDs), and computer/smartphone access. In December 2017, participants completed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Computerized Adaptive Tests (PROMIS-CAT) for pain interference, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and physical function. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) provided disease activity scores (0–30). Participants completed an online survey on barriers to treatment optimization, including self-perception of disease compared to RAPID3/PROMIS scores. Results A total of 249 participants met inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Mean age (SD) was 52 (11) years, and the majority were female (92%) with high RAPID3 disease activity (175/249 [70%]; median score 18). The main reason participants did not change treatment was their physician’s recommendation (66%; n = 32). Of participants with high RAPID3 disease activity, 66 (38%) were offered a treatment change; 19 (29%) of whom declined the change. Most participants who intensified treatment did so because their symptoms had remained severe or worsened (51%; n = 33); only 16 (25%) participants intensified because they had not reached a specified treatment goal. Among participants who self-reported their disease activity as “none/low” or “medium” (n = 202; 81% of cohort), most still had RAPID3 high disease activity (137/202 [68%]; score > 12). Most PROMIS scores showed moderate agreement with participants’ self-assessment of health status, in contrast to RAPID3 (weighted kappa: 0.05 [95% CI − 0.01, 0.11]). Conclusions Most participants trusted their rheumatologist’s treatment decisions and prioritized their physician’s treatment goals over their own. Patients should be encouraged to share their treatment goals/expectations with their rheumatologist, in line with the treat-to-target approach. RAPID3 may be inappropriate for setting patient-centric treatment goals given the poor agreement with self-reported disease activity; most PROMIS scores showed better alignment with patients’ own assessments.

Abstract Introduction Many rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients do not achieve their treatment goals and experience symptoms that affect psychosocial outcomes and daily activities. This study aimed to identify and quantify the unmet needs perceived by US patients with RA currently taking a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). Methods A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted with RA patients recruited through CreakyJoints, an online patient support community, and ArthritisPower®, an online patient research registry, from December 2017 to January 2018. Participant patients were aged ≥ 21 years, failed ≥ 1 DMARDs, and were receiving their current DMARD(s) for ≥ 6 months; they answered 50 questions about treatment history, RA symptoms, and flares and completed the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). Treatment satisfaction was defined by a TSQM global satisfaction score ≥ 80. Results Of 415 patients screened, 258 (62%) were eligible and completed the survey; 87% were women, and 87% white, with mean (SD) age of 54.5 (11.4) years. A total of 232 patients (90%) had current or past biologic DMARD (bDMARD) use, with 67% currently on a bDMARD, 65% on ≥ 1 conventional synthetic DMARD, and 40% on methotrexate. Forty-three percent of patients reported daily/almost daily use of prescription pain medications, and 44% reported a current flare. Mean (SD) TSQM scores were 59 [20] for effectiveness, 59 [26] for side effects, 72 [18] for convenience, and 65 [21] for global satisfaction. The mean (SD) RAID overall score was 5.1 (2.0) on a 0–10 scale. Only 26% (67 patients) were satisfied with their RA treatment. Patients not satisfied with treatment reported higher RAID scores overall and by domain, and approximately half reported a current flare. Conclusions Results from this real-world survey suggest that three-fourths of RA patients are not satisfied with treatments, which include bDMARDs. Patients continued to experience bothersome symptoms that impacted their daily activities and life. There remains a need for improved disease management among currently treated RA patients. Funding Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA).

Abstract Introduction We describe the journey to diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) from the patient perspective and examine differences in this journey by sex. Methods US adults aged ≥ 18 years with a self-reported AS diagnosis were recruited online through CreakyJoints, a patient support community, and ArthritisPower, a patient research registry. Respondents completed a web-based survey on sociodemographics, disease burden, and diagnosis history. Results were stratified by sex and time to diagnosis using two-sample t tests and χ 2 tests, respectively, to observe differences across the groups; P

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.