Objectives To update the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) based on emerging new evidence. Methods An international Task Force formed the questions for the systematic literature reviews (January 2018–December 2022), followed by formulation and finalisation of the statements after a series of meetings. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned, and participants finally provided their level of agreement with each item. Results The Task Force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 13 recommendations, concerning the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), glucocorticoids (GC), immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs) (including methotrexate, mycophenolate, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide (CYC)), calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, voclosporin) and biologics (belimumab, anifrolumab, rituximab). Advice is also provided on treatment strategies and targets of therapy, assessment of response, combination and sequential therapies, and tapering of therapy. HCQ is recommended for all patients with lupus at a target dose 5 mg/kg real body weight/day, considering the individual’s risk for flares and retinal toxicity. GC are used as ‘bridging therapy’ during periods of disease activity; for maintenance treatment, they should be minimised to equal or less than 5 mg/day (prednisone equivalent) and, when possible, withdrawn. Prompt initiation of ISDs (methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate) and/or biological agents (anifrolumab, belimumab) should be considered to control the disease and facilitate GC tapering/discontinuation. CYC and rituximab should be considered in organ-threatening and refractory disease, respectively. For active lupus nephritis, GC, mycophenolate or low-dose intravenous CYC are recommended as anchor drugs, and add-on therapy with belimumab or CNIs (voclosporin or tacrolimus) should be considered. Updated specific recommendations are also provided for cutaneous, neuropsychiatric and haematological disease, SLE-associated antiphospholipid syndrome, kidney protection, as well as preventative measures for infections, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease. Conclusion The updated recommendations provide consensus guidance on the management of SLE, combining evidence and expert opinion.

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.

Symptom checkers are increasingly used to assess new symptoms and navigate the health care system. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based symptom checker (Ada) and physicians regarding the presence/absence of an inflammatory rheumatic disease (IRD). In this survey study, German-speaking physicians with prior rheumatology working experience were asked to determine IRD presence/absence and suggest diagnoses for 20 different real-world patient vignettes, which included only basic health and symptom-related medical history. IRD detection rate and suggested diagnoses of participants and Ada were compared to the gold standard, the final rheumatologists’ diagnosis, reported on the discharge summary report. A total of 132 vignettes were completed by 33 physicians (mean rheumatology working experience 8.8 (SD 7.1) years). Ada’s diagnostic accuracy (IRD) was significantly higher compared to physicians (70 vs 54%, p = 0.002) according to top diagnosis. Ada listed the correct diagnosis more often compared to physicians (54 vs 32%, p < 0.001) as top diagnosis as well as among the top 3 diagnoses (59 vs 42%, p < 0.001). Work experience was not related to suggesting the correct diagnosis or IRD status. Confined to basic health and symptom-related medical history, the diagnostic accuracy of physicians was lower compared to an AI-based symptom checker. These results highlight the potential of using symptom checkers early during the patient journey and importance of access to complete and sufficient patient information to establish a correct diagnosis.

Objectives: To determine whether disease remission or low disease activity state at the beginning of pregnancy in SLE patients is associated with better pregnancy outcome. Methods: Pregnancies in SLE patients prospectively monitored by pregnancy clinics at four rheumatology centres were enrolled. Patient demographics and clinical information were collected at baseline (pregnancy visit before 8 weeks of gestation) including whether patients were in remission according to the Definition of Remission in SLE (DORIS) criteria and and/or Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS). Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to determine predictors of disease flare and adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) including preeclampsia, preterm delivery, small for gestational age infant, intrauterine growth restriction and intrauterine fetal death. Results: A total of 347 pregnancies were observed in 281 SLE patients. Excluding early pregnancy losses, 212 pregnancies (69.7%) occurred in patients who were in remission at baseline, 33 (10.9%) in patients in LLDAS, and the remainder in active patients. Seventy-three flares (24%) were observed during pregnancy or puerperium, and 105 (34.5%) APOs occurred. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients in disease remission or taking HCQ were less likely to have disease flare, while a history of LN increased the risk. The risk of APOs was increased in patients with shorter disease duration, while being on HCQ resulted a protective variable. An almost significant association between complete remission and a decreased risk of APOs was observed. Conclusions: Prenatal planning with a firm treat-to-target goal of disease remission is an important strategy to reduce the risk of disease flares and severe obstetric complications in SLE pregnancies.

Background: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers among rheumatologists. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the use of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified. Methods: Data were collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie [DGRh]) at the 2019 annual DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical adult rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey. Results: A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey, of which 107 (89.9%) reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 28 (25.5%) already used ePROs. Additionally, 44% (43/97) were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future. The most commonly cited reason for not switching was the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Respondents were asked to rate the features of ePROs on a scale of 0 to 100 (0=unimportant, 100=important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (mean 77.50) and simple data transfer to medical reports (mean 76.90). When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness, and patient global assessment as the most frequently used PROs. Conclusions: The potential of ePROs is widely seen and there is great interest in them. Despite this, only a minority of physicians use ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing them was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Developers, patients, and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to drastic changes in the management of patients with rheumatic diseases. Due to the imminent risk of infection, monitoring intervals of rheumatic patients have prolonged. The aim of this study is to present insights from patients, rheumatologists, and digital product developers on the ongoing digital health transition in rheumatology. A qualitative and participatory semi-structured fishbowl approach was conducted to gain detailed insights from a total of 476 participants. The main findings show that digital health and remote care are generally welcomed by the participants. Five key themes emerged from the qualitative content analysis: (1) digital rheumatology use cases, (2) user descriptions, (3) adaptation to different environments of rheumatology care, and (4) potentials of and (5) barriers to digital rheumatology implementation. Codes were scaled by positive and negative ratings as well as on micro, meso, and macro levels. A main recommendation resulting from the insights is that both patients and rheumatologists need more information and education to successfully implement digital health tools into clinical routine.