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.

Wearable activity tracker study exploring rheumatoid arthritis patients' disease activity using patient-reported outcome measures, clinical measures, and biometric sensor data (the wear study).

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.

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.

Healthcare disparities: patients' perspectives on barriers to joint replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Racial and ethnic disparities in arthroplasty utilization are evident, but the reasons are not known. We aimed to identify concerns that may contribute to barriers to arthroplasty from the patient's perspective. METHODS: We identified patients' concerns about arthroplasty by performing a mixed methods study. Themes identified during semi-structured interviews with Black and Hispanic patients with advanced symptomatic hip or knee arthritis were used to develop a questionnaire to quantify and prioritize their concerns. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the association between race/ethnicity and the importance of each theme. Models were adjusted for sex, insurance, education, HOOS, JR/KOOS, JR, and discussion of joint replacement with a doctor. RESULTS: Interviews with eight participants reached saturation and provided five themes used to develop a survey answered by 738 (24%) participants; 75.5% White, 10.3% Black, 8.7% Hispanic, 3.9% Asian/Other. Responses were significantly different between groups (p < 0.05). Themes identified were "Trust in the surgeon" "Recovery", "Cost/Insurance", "Surgical outcome", and "Personal suitability/timing". Compared to Whites, Blacks were two-fold, Hispanics four-fold more likely to rate "Trust in the surgeon" as very/extremely important. Blacks were almost three times and Hispanics over six times more likely to rate "Recovery" as very/extremely important. CONCLUSION: We identified factors of importance to patients that may contribute to barriers to arthroplasty, with marked differences between Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites.

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.

A Real-World Effectiveness Study Using a Mobile Application to Evaluate Early Outcomes with Upadacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of upadacitinib on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) symptoms was evaluated during the first 12 weeks of treatment via patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using a mobile health application (app). METHODS: Participating rheumatologists from the CorEvitas RA Registry (prospective, observational cohort) recruited patients with RA initiating upadacitinib treatment. A modified version of the ArthritisPower® app was used to collect PROs, including the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), duration of morning joint stiffness, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue 7a Short Form at baseline and weeks 1-4, 8, and 12. RAPID3 responses over time were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimation to determine the proportion of patients achieving disease activity improvement and minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results were analyzed for all patients initiating upadacitinib and a subsample of TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients with moderate to severe disease at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients with RA initiating upadacitinib (62.1% TNFi-experienced) were included. At week 12, 53 patients (51.4%) completed the study and provided PRO data via the app. Among all patients, improvements in RAPID3, pain, morning stiffness, and fatigue were observed at week 1 and were maintained or further improved through week 12. At week 12, 37.5% of patients achieved RAPID3 low disease activity. Starting at week 1, improvements in RAPID3 disease activity category (19.4% of patients) and achievement of MCID (16.3%) were reported, with nearly 50% of patients achieving these outcomes by week 4 (RAPID3 category: 48.8%; MCID: 49.2%) and 60% by week 12 (RAPID3 category: 59.6%; MCID: 59.8%). TNFi-experienced patients generally reported similar outcomes. Patient-reported medication convenience and compliance were generally high. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib was associated with early and significant improvement in RAPID3, pain, morning stiffness, and fatigue regardless of prior TNFi experience. Clinically meaningful improvement in RAPID3 patient-reported disease activity was observed as early as week 1, with continued improvement reported through week 12.

Understanding Heterogeneity in Patients' Conceptualisation of Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cluster Analysis.

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.

Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Rheumatic Diseases in Health Systems of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative prevalence of 8 rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) across racial and ethnic groups within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet). METHODS: Electronic health records from participating PCORnet institutions and systems from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018, were used to identify adult patients with ≥ 2 diagnosis codes for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), osteoporosis (OP), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), giant cell arteritis (GCA), and Takayasu arteritis (TAK). Among those with race and ethnicity data available, we compared prevalence of RMDs by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Data from 28,059,546 patients were available for analysis. RA was more common in patients who were American Indian or Alaska Native vs White, with a prevalence of 11.57 vs 10.11/1000 (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.09-1.22). SLE was more common in patients who were Black or African American (6.73/1000), American Indian or Alaska Native (3.82/1000), and Asian (3.39/1000) vs White (2.80/1000; OR 2.43, 95% CI 2.39-2.46; OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.25-1.53; OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.21-1.31, respectively). SLE was more common in patients who were Hispanic vs non-Hispanic (prevalence 3.93 vs 3.45/1000, OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12-1.16). TAK was more common in patients who were Asian vs White (prevalence 0.05 vs 0.04/1000, OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.00-2.03). OP, RA, and the vasculitides were all more common in patients who were White vs Black or African American. CONCLUSION: These data provide important information on the prevalence of RMDs by race and ethnicity in the United States. PCORnet can be used as a reliable data source to study RMDs within a large representative population.

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.

Assessment of Real-World Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Initiating Biologic Agents for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases: An Observational Study in Four Patient-Powered Research Networks.

Background: The most reliable and meaningful approach for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the evaluation of real-world clinical effectiveness of biologics in the treatment of autoimmune diseases is u ncertain. This study aimed to assess and compare the proportions of patients who had abnormalities in PROs measuring important general health domains at the initiation of treatment with biologics, as well as the effects of baseline abnormalities on subsequent improvement. Methods: PROs were collected for patient participants with inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and vasculitis using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments. Scores were reported as T-scores normalized to the general population in the United States. Baseline PROs scores were collected near the time of biologic initiation, and follow-up scores were collected 3 to 8 months later. In addition to summary statistics, the proportion of patients with PROs abnormalities (scores ≥5 units worse than the population norm) was determined. Baseline and follow-up scores were compared, and an improvement of ≥5 units was considered significant. Results: There was wide variation across autoimmune diseases in baseline PROs scores for all domains. For example, the proportion of participants with abnormal baseline pain interference scores ranged from 52% to 93%. When restricted to participants with baseline PROs abnormalities, the proportion of participants experiencing an improvement of ≥5 units was substantially higher. Conclusion: As expected, many patients experienced improvement in PROs following initiation of treatment with biologics for autoimmune diseases. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of participants did not exhibit abnormalities in all PROs domains at baseline, and these participants appear less likely to experience improvement. For PROs to be reliably and meaningfully included in the evaluation of real-world medication effectiveness, more knowledge and careful consideration are needed to select the most appropriate patient populations and subgroups for inclusion and evaluation in studies measuring change in PROs.

Engaging Multistakeholder Perspectives to Identify Patient-Centered Research Priorities Regarding Vaccine Uptake Among Adults With Autoimmune Conditions.

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.

Balancing COVID-19 Risk With Physical and Mental Wellness: Perspectives of Patients With Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases Throughout the Pandemic.

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.

Web-Based Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Well-being: Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness can improve overall well-being by training individuals to focus on the present moment without judging their thoughts. However, it is unknown how much mindfulness practice and training are necessary to improve well-being. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to determine whether a standard 8-session web-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) program, compared with a brief 3-session mindfulness intervention, improved overall participant well-being. In addition, we sought to explore whether the treatment effects differed based on the baseline characteristics of the participants (ie, moderators). METHODS: Participants were recruited from 17 patient-powered research networks, web-based communities of stakeholders interested in a common research area. Participants were randomized to either a standard 8-session MBCT or a brief 3-session mindfulness training intervention accessed on the web. The participants were followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome of the study was well-being, as measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index. We hypothesized that MBCT would be superior to a brief mindfulness training. RESULTS: We randomized 4411 participants, 3873 (87.80%) of whom were White and 3547 (80.41%) of female sex assigned at birth. The mean baseline World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index score was 50.3 (SD 20.7). The average self-reported well-being in each group increased over the intervention period (baseline to 8 weeks; model-based slope for the MBCT group: 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.93, and brief mindfulness group: 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.91) as well as the full study period (ie, intervention plus follow-up; baseline to 20 weeks; model-based slope for MBCT group: 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.48; and brief mindfulness group: 0.33, 95% CI 0.26-0.40). Changes in self-reported well-being were not significantly different between MBCT and brief mindfulness during the intervention period (model-based difference in slopes: -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19; P=.80) or during the intervention period plus 12-week follow-up (-0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.02; P=.10). During the intervention period, younger participants (P=.05) and participants who completed a higher percentage of intervention sessions (P=.005) experienced greater improvements in well-being across both interventions, with effects that were stronger for participants in the MBCT condition. Attrition was high (ie, 2142/4411, 48.56%), which is an important limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Standard MBCT improved well-being but was not superior to a brief mindfulness intervention. This finding suggests that shorter mindfulness programs could yield important benefits across the general population of individuals with various medical conditions. Younger people and participants who completed more intervention sessions reported greater improvements in well-being, an effect that was more pronounced for participants in the MBCT condition. This finding suggests that standard MBCT may be a better choice for younger people as well as treatment-adherent individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03844321; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03844321.

Rheumatologist and Patient Mental Models for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Help Explain Low Treat-to-Target Rates.

OBJECTIVE: Despite proven benefits, less than half of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are treated using a treat-to-target (TTT) strategy. Our objective was to identify critical discrepancies between rheumatologist and patient mental models related to the treatment of RA to inform interventions designed to increase implementation of TTT. METHODS: We developed rheumatologist and patient mental models using the Mental Models Approach to Risk Communication. We conducted semistructured interviews to elicit views related to RA treatment decisions with 14 rheumatologists and 30 patients with RA. We also included responses (n = 284) to an open-ended question on a survey fielded to augment qualitative descriptions from the interviews. Interviews were transcribed and coded independently by two members of the research team. RESULTS: Rheumatologist and patient mental models for RA treatment are significantly more complex than the TTT model. Both consider domains (system factors and patient readiness) outside of disease activity measurement, target setting, and risk versus benefit assessment in their decision-making. Furthermore, specific factors were found to be unique to each model. For example, the physician model stresses the importance of evaluating disease activity over time and patient adherence. In contrast, patients discussed the impact of chronic disease weariness, medication-related fatigue, the importance of feeling adequately informed, and stress associated with changing medications. CONCLUSION: We found several discrepancies primarily related to information gaps and differences in how patients and physicians value trade-offs that can serve as specific targets to improve patient-physician communication and ultimately inform interventions to improve uptake of TTT.

Protocol for the pilot randomized trial of the CArdiovascular Risk assEssment for Rheumatoid Arthritis (CARE RA) intervention: a peer coach behavioral intervention.

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.

Patient Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Telemedicine for Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceptions and preferences of telemedicine among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Attitudes about telemedicine (i.e., telemedicine acceptability), evaluated using the validated Telemedicine Perception Questionnaire (TMPQ), and visit satisfaction were assessed for different telemedicine experiences and types of autoimmune rheumatic disease. RESULTS: Of 3,369 invitations, 819 responses were received. Participants had a mean ± SD age of 58.6 ± 11.6 years and were mostly White (n = 759, or 92.7%) and female (n = 702, or 85.7%). Of the 618 participants who said that telemedicine was available to them, 449 (72.7%) reported having a telemedicine visit, with 303 (67.5%) reporting attending a telemedicine video visit. On a 0 to 10 scale, the mean ± SD visit satisfaction score was 7.3 ± 1.8, with 25.8% of respondents being very satisfied (scores of 9 or 10). Video visits and higher TMPQ scores were associated with higher satisfaction. Compared to those who did not experience a telemedicine visit, patients who did were more likely to prefer telemedicine (video or phone) for routine visits (73.7% versus 44.3%; P < 0.001), reviewing test results (64.8% versus 53.8%; P < 0.001), when considering changing medications (40.5% versus 26.8%; P < 0.001), and when starting a new injectable medication (18.9% versus 12.7%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases frequently had telemedicine visits, with the majority held via video, and were satisfied with these visits. These results suggest that because patients prefer telemedicine for certain visit reasons, maximizing effective use of telemedicine will require personalized patient scheduling.

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.

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.

Patient-Reported Nausea and Fatigue Related to Methotrexate: A Prospective, Self-Controlled Study in the ArthritisPower® Registry.

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.