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.
ObjectiveTo analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatic patients’ and rheumatologists’ usage, preferences and perception of digital health applications (DHAs).MethodsA 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionThe 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.
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 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 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. 73 flares (24%) were observed during pregnancy or puerperium, and 105 (34.5%) APOs occurred. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients in disease remission or taking hydroxychloroquine were less likely to have disease flare, while a history of lupus nephritis increased the risk. The risk of APOs was increased in patients with shorter disease duration, while being on hydroxychloroquine 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 obstetrical complications in SLE pregnancies.
ObjectiveTo investigate outcome and course of pregnancies in women with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in a pooled data analysis of pregnancy registries in rheumatology.MethodsProspectively followed women with axSpA, fulfilling ASAS classification criteria and for whom a pregnancy outcome was reported, were eligible for the analysis. Anonymised data of four registries was pooled. Rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes were calculated. Systemic inflammation, disease activity and treatment patterns with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) before, during and after pregnancy were analysed.ResultsIn a total of 332 pregnancies from 304 axSpA women, 98.8% of the pregnancies resulted in live birth. Mean maternal age was 31 years and disease duration 5 years. Most of these patients received pre-conception counselling (78.4%). Before pregnancy, 53% received TNFi treatment, 27.5% in first and 21.4% in third trimester. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were favourable with rates of 2.2% for pre-eclampsia, 4.9% for preterm birth, 3.1% for low birth weight and 9.5% for small for gestational age. Neonates were delivered by caesarean section in 27.7% of pregnancies, of which 47.4% were emergencies. Pooled mean CRP was 4 mg/L before conception peaking in the second trimester at 9.4 mg/L. Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) was below 4 at all time-points.ConclusionsPooled rates of most outcomes were better than what had been reported in the literature and within expected rates of those reported for the general population. Pre-conception counselling, planned pregnancies and a tight management in expert centres applying a tailored treatment approach may have contributed to the favourable pregnancy outcomes.
ObjectiveIt is still a matter of debate whether low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (LDASA) should be prescribed to all patients with SLE during pregnancy. This study aimed at investigating the impact of LDASA on pregnancy outcomes in patients with SLE without history of renal involvement and without antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL).MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of prospectively monitored pregnancies at seven rheumatology centres. Previous/current renal involvement and aPL positivity were the exclusion criteria. Adverse pregnancy outcome (APO) is the composite outcome of the study and included proteinuric pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery <37 weeks, small-for-gestational age infant, low birth weight <2500 g, intrauterine growth restriction and intrauterine fetal death after 12 weeks of gestation of a morphologically normal fetus.Results216 pregnancies in 187 patients were included; 82 pregnancies (38.0%) were exposed to LDASA treatment. No differences in terms of age at conception, disease duration, clinical manifestations, comorbidities and disease flare during pregnancy were observed between patients taking LDASA and those who did not take LDASA during pregnancy. APO was observed in 65 cases (30.1%), including 13 cases (6.1%) of pre-eclampsia. The incidence of all complications was similar in the two groups. However, it is interesting to note that pre-eclampsia had lower frequency in patients taking LDASA versus those not taking LDASA (2.4% vs 8.3%, p=0.14).ConclusionsIn pregnant patients with SLE without renal involvement and were aPL-negative, there is a low risk of severe obstetric complications, such as early pre-eclampsia. LDASA treatment does not provide a statistically significant advantage over these complications. However, a careful individual risk–benefit balance is warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.