2022 EULAR points to consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: Remote care and telehealth have the potential to expand healthcare access, and the COVID-19 pandemic has called for alternative solutions to conventional face-to-face follow-up and monitoring. However, guidance is needed on the integration of telehealth into clinical care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD). OBJECTIVE: To develop EULAR points to consider (PtC) for the development, prioritisation and implementation of telehealth for people with RMD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary EULAR task force (TF) of 30 members from 14 European countries was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for development of PtC were followed. A systematic literature review was conducted to support the TF in formulating the PtC. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtC were formulated. The use of telehealth should be tailored to patient's needs and preferences. The healthcare team should have adequate equipment and training and have telecommunication skills. Telehealth can be used in screening for RMD as preassessment in the referral process, for disease monitoring and regulation of medication dosages and in some non-pharmacological interventions. People with RMD should be offered training in using telehealth, and barriers should be resolved whenever possible.The level of agreement to each statement ranged from 8.5 to 9.8/10. CONCLUSION: The PtC have identified areas where telehealth could improve quality of care and increase healthcare access. Knowing about drivers and barriers of telehealth is a prerequisite to successfully establish remote care approaches in rheumatologic clinical practice.

SIGLEC1 enables straightforward assessment of type I interferon activity in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sialic acid binding Ig-like lectin 1 (SIGLEC1) expression on monocytes by flow cytometry as a type I interferon biomarker in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of adult and paediatric patients with the diagnosis of IIM. SIGLEC1 expression was assessed by flow cytometry and was compared with Physician Global Assessment or Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale disease activity scores. Mann Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic curves were used for cross-sectional data analysis (n=96), two-level mixed-effects linear regression model for longitudinal analyses (n=26, 110 visits). Response to treatment was analysed in 14 patients within 12 months, using Wilcoxon test. SIGLEC1 was compared with interferon-stimulated gene 15/MxA status by immunohistochemical staining of muscle biopsies (n=17). RESULTS: 96 patients with adult (a) and juvenile (j) dermatomyositis (DM, n=38), antisynthetase syndrome (AS, n=19), immune-mediated necrotising myopathy (IMNM, n=8), inclusion body myositis (IBM, n=9) and overlap myositis (n=22) were included. SIGLEC1 distinguished significantly between active and inactive disease with an area under the curve of 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 1) in DM and correlated with disease activity longitudinally (aDM: standardised beta=0.54, p<0.001; jDM: standardised beta=-0.70, p<0.001). Response to treatment in DM was associated with a decreasing SIGLEC1 (p<0.01, Wilcoxon test). SIGLEC1 was found upregulated in 8 of 19 patients with AS, 2 of 9 patients with IBM but not in IMNM. CONCLUSION: SIGLEC1 is a candidate biomarker to assess type I interferon activity in IIM and proved useful for monitoring disease activity and response to treatment in juvenile and adult DM.

German Mobile Apps in Rheumatology: Review and Analysis Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).

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.