BackgroundRemote 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).ObjectiveTo develop EULAR points to consider (PtC) for the development, prioritisation and implementation of telehealth for people with RMD.MethodsA 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.ResultsFour 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Objective: To evaluate the short-term effects of use of the dr. Bart app, compared to usual care, on the number of secondary health care consultations and clinical outcomes in people with knee/hip OA in the Netherlands. Method: A randomized controlled design involving participants !50 years with self-reported knee and/ or hip OA recruited from the community. The number of secondary health care consultations (primary outcome) and secondary outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months via online questionnaires. Data were analyzed using longitudinal mixed models, corrected for baseline values. Due to the design of this study, blinding of participants and researchers was not possible. Results: In total, 427 eligible participants were allocated to either the dr. Bart group (n ¼ 214) or usual care (n ¼ 213). We found no difference between groups in the number of secondary (i.e., orthopaedic surgeon, rheumatologist, or physician assistant) health care consultations (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.20 (95% CI: 0.67; 2.19)). We found positive treatment effects of the dr. Bart app on symptoms (2.6 (95% CI: 0.4; 4.9)), pain (3.5 (95% CI: 0.9; 6.0)), and activities of daily living (2.9 (95% CI: 0.2; 5.6)) on a 0e100 scale, higher score indicating less complaints, but not in any other secondary outcome. Conclusion: The dr. Bart app did not change the number of secondary health care consultations compared to usual care. However, we found small positive effects (not clinically relevant) on pain, symptoms, and activities of daily living in people with knee/hip OA. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register (Trial Number NTR6693/NL6505) (https://www.trialregister.nl/ trial/6505).

Frank van den Hoogen, 1 Job van der Palen, 3 and Cornelia van den Ende 1 Objective. To evaluate the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of the dr. Bart app compared to usual care in people with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knees and hips, applying a health care payer perspective.Methods. This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6-month randomized controlled trial that included 427 participants. The dr. Bart app is a stand-alone eHealth application that invites users to select pre-formulated goals (i.e., "tiny habits") and triggers for a healthier lifestyle. Self-reported outcome measures were health care costs, qualityadjusted life years (QALYs) according to the EuroQol 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) descriptive system, the EuroQol visual analog scale (QALY VAS), patient activation measure 13 (PAM-13), and 5 subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score/Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Missing data were multiply imputed, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.Results. The mean AE SD age of the study participants was 62.1 AE 7.3 years, and the majority of participants were female (72%). Health care costs were lower in the intervention group compared to the group who received usual care (€−22 [95% confidence interval €−36, −3]). For QALY and QALY VAS, the probability of the dr. Bart app being costeffective compared to usual care was 0.71 and 0.67, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €10,000 and 0.64 and 0.56, respectively, at a WTP of €80.000. For self-management behavior, symptoms, pain, and activities of daily living, the probability that the dr. Bart app was cost-effective was >0.82, and the probability that the dr. Bart app was cost-effective in the areas of activities and quality of life was <0.40, regardless of WTP thresholds.Conclusion. This economic evaluation showed that costs were lower for the dr. Bart app group compared to the group who received usual care. Given the noninvasive nature of the intervention and the moderate probability of it being cost-effective for the majority of outcomes, the dr. Bart app has the potential to serve as a tool to provide education and goal setting in OA and its treatment options.Dutch Trial Register identifier: NTR6693/NL6505 (https://www.trialregister. nl/trial/6505).