Background: Mobile health (mHealth) defines the support and practice of health care using mobile devices and promises to improve the current treatment situation of patients with chronic diseases. Little is known about mHealth usage and digital preferences of patients with chronic rheumatic diseases. Objective: The aim of the study was to explore mHealth usage, preferences, barriers, and eHealth literacy reported by German patients with rheumatic diseases. Methods: Between December 2018 and January 2019, patients (recruited consecutively) with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis were asked to complete a paper-based survey. The survey included questions on sociodemographics, health characteristics, mHealth usage, eHealth literacy using eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), and communication and information preferences. Results: Of the patients (N=193) who completed the survey, 176 patients (91.2%) regularly used a smartphone, and 89 patients (46.1%) regularly used social media. Patients (132/193, 68.4%) believed that using medical apps could be beneficial for their own health. Out of 193 patients, only 8 (4.1%) were currently using medical apps, and only 22 patients (11.4%) stated that they knew useful rheumatology websites/mobile apps. Nearly all patients (188/193, 97.4%) would agree to share their mobile app data for research purposes. Out of 193 patients, 129 (66.8%) would regularly enter data using an app, and 146 patients (75.6%) would welcome official mobile app recommendations from the national rheumatology society. The preferred duration for data entry was not more than 15 minutes (110/193, 57.0%), and the preferred frequency was weekly (59/193, 30.6%). Medication information was the most desired app feature (150/193, 77.7%). Internet was the most frequently utilized source of information (144/193, 74.6%). The mean eHealth literacy was low (26.3/40) and was positively correlated with younger age, app use, belief in benefit of using medical apps, and current internet use to obtain health information. Conclusions: Patients with rheumatic diseases are very eager to use mHealth technologies to better understand their chronic diseases. This open-mindedness is counterbalanced by low mHealth usage and competency. Personalized mHealth solutions and clear implementation recommendations are needed to realize the full potential of mHealth in rheumatology.

Antisynthetase syndrome (ASSD) is a rare clinical condition that is characterized by the occurrence of a classic clinical triad, encompassing myositis, arthritis, and interstitial lung disease (ILD), along with specific autoantibodies that are addressed to different aminoacyl tRNA synthetases (ARS). Until now, it has been unknown whether the presence of a different ARS might affect the clinical presentation, evolution, and outcome of ASSD. In this study, we retrospectively recorded the time of onset, characteristics, clustering of triad findings, and survival of 828 ASSD patients (593 anti-Jo1, 95 anti-PL7, 84 anti-PL12, 38 anti-EJ, and 18 anti-OJ), referring to AENEAS (American and European NEtwork of Antisynthetase Syndrome) collaborative group’s cohort. Comparisons were performed first between all ARS cases and then, in the case of significance, while using anti-Jo1 positive patients as the reference group. The characteristics of triad findings were similar and the onset mainly began with a single triad finding in all groups despite some differences in overall prevalence. The “ex-novo” occurrence of triad findings was only reduced in the anti-PL12-positive cohort, however, it occurred in a clinically relevant percentage of patients (30%). Moreover, survival was not influenced by the underlying anti-aminoacyl tRNA synthetase antibodies’ positivity, which confirmed that antisynthetase syndrome is a heterogeneous condition and that antibody specificity only partially influences the clinical presentation and evolution of this condition.

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.

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.

Pre-clinical studies suggest that large language models (i.e., ChatGPT) could be used in the diagnostic process to distinguish inflammatory rheumatic (IRD) from other diseases. We therefore aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4 in comparison to rheumatologists. For the analysis, the data set of Gräf et al. (2022) was used. Previous patient assessments were analyzed using ChatGPT-4 and compared to rheumatologists’ assessments. ChatGPT-4 listed the correct diagnosis comparable often to rheumatologists as the top diagnosis 35% vs 39% (p = 0.30); as well as among the top 3 diagnoses, 60% vs 55%, (p = 0.38). In IRD-positive cases, ChatGPT-4 provided the top diagnosis in 71% vs 62% in the rheumatologists’ analysis. Correct diagnosis was among the top 3 in 86% (ChatGPT-4) vs 74% (rheumatologists). In non-IRD cases, ChatGPT-4 provided the correct top diagnosis in 15% vs 27% in the rheumatologists’ analysis. Correct diagnosis was among the top 3 in non-IRD cases in 46% of the ChatGPT-4 group vs 45% in the rheumatologists group. If only the first suggestion for diagnosis was considered, ChatGPT-4 correctly classified 58% of cases as IRD compared to 56% of the rheumatologists (p = 0.52). ChatGPT-4 showed a slightly higher accuracy for the top 3 overall diagnoses compared to rheumatologist’s assessment. ChatGPT-4 was able to provide the correct differential diagnosis in a relevant number of cases and achieved better sensitivity to detect IRDs than rheumatologist, at the cost of lower specificity. The pilot results highlight the potential of this new technology as a triage tool for the diagnosis of IRD.

Objective To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatic patients’ and rheumatologists’ usage, preferences and perception of digital health applications (DHAs). Methods A web-based national survey was developed by the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology and the German League against Rheumatism. The prospective survey was distributed via social media (Twitter, Instagram and Facebook), QR code and email. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and regression analyses were performed to show correlations. Results We analysed the responses of 299 patients and 129 rheumatologists. Most patients (74%) and rheumatologists (76%) believed that DHAs are useful in the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and felt confident in their own usage thereof (90%; 86%). 38% of patients and 71% of rheumatologists reported that their attitude had changed positively towards DHAs and that their usage had increased due to COVID-19 (29%; 48%). The majority in both groups agreed on implementing virtual visits for follow-up appointments in stable disease conditions. The most reported advantages of DHAs were usage independent of time and place (76.6%; 77.5%). The main barriers were a lack of information on suitable, available DHAs (58.5%; 41.9%), poor usability (42.1% of patients) and a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of DHAs (23.2% of rheumatologists). Only a minority (<10% in both groups) believed that digitalisation has a negative impact on the patient–doctor relationship. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic instigated an increase in patients’ and rheumatologists’ acceptance and usage of DHAs, possibly introducing a permanent paradigm shift in the management of RMDs.