Which Educational Topics and Smartphone App Functions Are Prioritized by US Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases? A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify (1) what types of information US adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) perceive as most important to know about their disease, and (2) what functions they would use in an RMD-specific smartphone app. METHODS: Nominal groups with patients with RMD were conducted using online tools to generate a list of needed educational topics. Based on nominal group results, a survey with final educational items was administered online, along with questions about desired functions of a smartphone app for RMD and wearable use, to patients within a large community rheumatology practice-based research network and the PatientSpot registry. Chi-square tests and multivariate regression models were used to determine differences in priorities between groups of respondents with rheumatic inflammatory conditions (RICs) and osteoarthritis (OA), and possible associations. RESULTS: At least 80% of respondents considered finding a rheumatologist, understanding tests and medications, and quickly recognizing and communicating symptoms to doctors as extremely important educational topics. The highest-ranked topic for both RIC and OA groups was "knowing when the medication is not working." The app functions that most respondents considered useful were viewing laboratory results, recording symptoms to share with their rheumatology provider, and recording symptoms (eg, pain, fatigue) or disease flares for health tracking over time. Approximately one-third of respondents owned and regularly used a wearable activity tracker. CONCLUSION: People with RMD prioritized information about laboratory test results, medications, and disease and symptom monitoring, which can be used to create educational and digital tools that support patients during their disease journey.

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.

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake, Hesitancy, and Flare in a Large Rheumatology Practice Network.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to ascertain COVID-19 vaccine uptake, reasons for hesitancy, and self-reported flare in a large rheumatology practice-based network. METHODS: A tablet-based survey was deployed by 108 rheumatology practices from December 2021 to December 2022. Patients were asked about COVID-19 vaccine status and why they might not receive a vaccine or booster. We used descriptive statistics to explore the differences between vaccination status and vaccine and booster hesitancy, comparing patients with and without autoimmune and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs). We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between vaccine uptake and AIIRD status and self-reported flare and AIIRD status. We reported adjusted odds ratios (aORs). RESULTS: Of the 61,158 patients, 89% reported at least one dose of vaccine; of the vaccinated, 68% reported at least one booster. Vaccinated patients were less likely to have AIIRDs (44% vs 56%). A greater proportion of patients with AIIRDs were vaccine hesitant (14% vs 10%) and booster hesitant (21% vs 16%) compared to patients without AIIRDs. Safety concerns (28%) and side effects (23%) were the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy, whereas a lack of recommendation from the physician was the primary factor for booster hesitancy (23%). Patients with AIIRD did not have increased odds of self-reported flare or worsening disease compared to patients without with AIIRD (aOR 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.05). Among the patients who were vaccine hesitant and booster hesitant, 12% and 39% later reported receiving a respective dose. Patients with AIIRD were 32% less likely to receive a vaccine (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.65-0.72) versus patients without AIIRD. CONCLUSION: Some patients who are vaccine and booster hesitant eventually receive a vaccine dose, and future interventions tailored to patients with AIIRD may be fruitful.

Patient Perceptions of Rheumatoid Arthritis Blood Work: A Cross-Sectional Survey in the ArthritisPower Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) perceive RA-related laboratory testing and the potential utility of a blood test to predict treatment response to a new RA medication. METHODS: ArthritisPower members with RA were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey on reasons for laboratory testing plus a choice-based conjoint analysis exercise to determine how patients value different attributes of a biomarker-based test to predict treatment response. RESULTS: Most patients perceived that their doctors ordered laboratory tests to check for active inflammation (85.9%) or assess medication side effects (81.2%). The most commonly ordered blood tests used to monitor RA were complete blood counts, liver function tests, and those measuring C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Patients felt CRP was most helpful in understanding their disease activity. Most worried their current RA medication would eventually stop working (91.4%) and they would waste time trying a new RA medication that may not work for them (81.7%). For patients who would require a future change in RA treatment, a majority (89.2%) reported that they would be very/extremely interested in a blood test that could help predict whether such new medication would be effective. Highly accurate test results (improving the chance RA medication will work from 50% to 85-95%) were more important to patients than low out-of-pocket cost (<$20) or minimal wait time (<7 days). CONCLUSIONS: Patients consider RA-related blood work important for monitoring of inflammation and medication side effects. They worry about treatment effectiveness and would undergo testing to accurately predict treatment response.

Participant Engagement and Adherence to Providing Smartwatch and Patient-Reported Outcome Data: Digital Tracking of Rheumatoid Arthritis Longitudinally (DIGITAL) Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital health studies using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) and wearables bring new challenges, including the need for participants to consistently provide trial data. OBJECTIVE: This 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. METHODS: Participants 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). RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: Compared 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.

Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The current burden of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in minority populations is largely unknown. We sought to evaluate the relative prevalence of CD and UC across racial and ethnic groups within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet). METHODS: We queried electronic health records from 337 centers from January 2013 to December 2018. We compared the relative prevalence of CD and UC across racial/ethnic groups to the general PCORnet populations using χ 2 and univariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 39,864,077 patients, 114,168 had CD, and 98,225 had UC. Relative to the overall PCORnet population, Black adult patients were significantly less likely than White patients to have a diagnosis of CD (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.52-0.54) or UC (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.40-0.43). Pediatric Black patients were also less likely to have a diagnosis of CD (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.39-0.43) or UC (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.35-0.41). Adult Hispanic patients were less likely to have a diagnosis of CD (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.32-0.34) or UC (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.44-0.46) compared with non-Hispanic patients. Similarly, pediatric Hispanic patients were less likely to have a diagnosis of CD (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.32-0.36) or UC (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.47-0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the United States, these data suggest that CD and UC are modestly less prevalent among patients of non-White races and Hispanic ethnicity.

Medication Interruptions and Subsequent Disease Flares During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Online Study of Patients With Rheumatic Disease.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess trends in anxiety and interruptions in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use among patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate whether DMARD interruptions were associated with disease flares. METHODS: ArthritisPower, the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network, and other patient organizations invited members to join a 52-week longitudinal study, with baseline surveys completed March 29 to June 30, 2020, with follow-up through May 2021. Logistic regression incorporating generalized estimating equations evaluated associations between interruptions in DMARD use and self-reported disease flares at the next survey, adjusting for demographic characteristics, medications, disease, and calendar time. RESULTS: Among 2,424 patients completing a median of 5 follow-up surveys, the mean age was 57 years, 87% were female, and the most common conditions were rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, and psoriatic arthritis. Average Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety T scores decreased from April 2020 (58.7) to May 2021 (53.7) (P < 0.001 for trend). Interruptions in DMARD use decreased from April (11.2%) to December 2020 (7.5%) (P < 0.001) but increased through May 2021 (14.0%) (P < 0.001). Interruptions in DMARD use were associated with a significant increase in severe flares (rated ≥6 of 10) at the next survey (12.9% versus 8.0% [odds ratio (OR) 1.71 (95% confidence interval [95% CI 1.23, 2.36]) although not any flare (OR 1.18 [95% CI 0.89, 1.58])]. CONCLUSION: Anxiety and interruptions in DMARD use initially decreased over time, but DMARD interruptions increased during 2021, possibly related to an increase in COVID-19 cases or vaccine availability. Interruptions in DMARD use were associated with increased rates of severe disease flares, highlighting the importance of avoiding unnecessary DMARD interruptions.