Search

Background:Digital health applications (DHAs) are gaining influence and promise great potential for the monitoring and management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).Objectives:To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on RMD patients’ and rheumatologists’ usage, preferences, and perception of digital health applications (DHAs) in Germany.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, 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 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%).Usage and recommendation of DHAs for both groups are shown in Figure 1:Figure 1.Usage or recommendation of digital health applications. Patients and rheumatologists were asked to indicate the specific digital health applications (DHAs) they used or were recommended.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) (Table 1).Table 1.Advantages and Barriers of DHA, n (%).AdvantagesBarriersPatientsRheumatologistsPatientsRheumatologistsLocation-Independence229 (76.6)100 (77.5)Too little information175 (58.5)54 (41.9)Time-independence223 (74.6)94 (72.9)Too little evidence of benefits36 (12.0)30 (23.3)Detailed documentation97 (32.4)47 (36.4)Poor quality of current apps47 (15.7)29 (22.5)Cost saving95 (31.8)37 (28.7)Concernsabout data protection52 (17.4)25 (19.4)More information88 (29.4)38 (29.5)Lack of usability126 (42.1)17 (13.2)Independenceof doctors+36 (12.0)-Lack of accessibility4 (1.3)-More flexibility107 (36.8)77 (59.7)High costs4 (1.3)23 (17.8)Preparationfor discussion+46 (15.4)-No suitable equipment17 (5.7)11 (8.5)No advantages at all18 (6.0)1 (0.8)Lack of user competenceNo Need9 (3.0)39 (13.0)-12 (9.3)Patients and rheumatologists were asked about the advantages and barriers of DHAs. Multiple answers were allowed. Patients had two additional potential advantages and potential barriers to choose from*.Only a minority (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.Acknowledgements:The authors thank the following persons and societies for their great effort, distributing the online survey: P.Aries, A.Hueber, E.Feist, C.Fiehn, P.Korsten, I.Kötter, F.Mühlensiepen, A.Pfeil, M.Rudwaleit, M.Welcker, S.Zinke, Deutsche Vereinigung Morbus Bechterew e.V., Deutsche Rheuma-Liga Bundesverband e. V., Sklerodermie Selbsthilfe e.V.Disclosure of Interests:Anna Kernder: None declared, Harriet Morf: None declared, Philipp Klemm: None declared, Diana Vossen Speakers bureau: Novartis, Abbvie, Amgen, Consultant of: Abbvie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Celgene GmbH, Gilead Sciences Inc., Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Medac GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Deutschland GmbH, UCB Pharma GmbH, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Marco Meyer Consultant of: Medac, Isabell Haase Speakers bureau: Medac, Consultant of: Medac, Grant/research support from: UCB, Abbvie, BMS, Johanna Mucke Speakers bureau: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma Germany GmbH, Celgene GmbH, Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Deutschland GmbH and UCB Pharma GmbH., Consultant of: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma Germany GmbH, Celgene GmbH, Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Deutschland GmbH and UCB Pharma GmbH., Arnd Kleyer Shareholder of: yes, Speakers bureau: Lilly, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis BMS, Gilead,Janssen, Grant/research support from: Lilly, Novartis, Gilead,, Philipp Sewerin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Axiom Health, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai Pharma Marketing Ltd./Chugai Europe, Deutscher Psoriasis-Bund, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead Sciences, Hexal Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Medi-login, Mediri GmbH, Novartis Pharma, Onkowissen GmbH, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Sanofi-Genzyme, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (DFG), Deutscher Psoriasis-Bund, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead Sciences, Hexal Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, and UCB, Gerlinde Bendzuck: None declared, Sabine Eis: None declared, Johannes Knitza Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Lilly, Medac, BMS, Sanofi, Amgen, Gilead, UCB, ABATON, GSK, Grant/research support from: Novartis, UCB, Thermofisher, Sanofi, Martin Krusche Speakers bureau: Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Gilead, Medac, Novartis, Sobi, BMS, Amgen, GSK, Grant/research support from: Sanofi

Background:Evidence on the efficacy of Mepolizumab (MEPO) in Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (EGPA) is scarce [1].Objectives:To assess the efficacy and safety of MEPO in real-life clinical practice.Methods:We retrospectively included patients diagnosed with EGPA and treated with MEPO (100 or 300 mg/month). MEPO efficacy was evaluated in the first 12 months in terms of systemic disease and asthma control. The occurrence of any adverse event (AE) was recorded.Results:142 patients were included (38% males; median age 46.4 (IQR 36.7-54.4); 110 and 32 on MEPO 100 and 300 mg/month, respectively). General, ear-nose-throat, pulmonary, and neurological symptoms significantly decreased during treatment (table 1). MEPO accounted for a significant reduction in the BVAS (figure 1) and for a steroid sparing effect (figure 2). The proportion of patients with asthma attacks decreased by 90% at 12 months compared to t0, and asthma-related emergency accesses dropped from 17.4% to 2.3%. Overall, 21.1% of patients had a non-serious AE.Table 1.Control of clinical symptomsMEPO beginning (t0)3 monthsp-value(t3 vs t0)6 monthsp-value(t6 vs t0)12 monthsp-value(t12 vs t0)N obsN=142N=135N=123N=89General symptoms40 (28.2%)17 (12.6%)19 (15.5%)13 (14.6%)0.002Cutaneous manifestations13 (9.2%)6 (4.4%)0.0085 (4.1%)0.0254 (4.5%)0.180ENT manifestations106 (74.7%)52 (38.5%)44 (35.8%)29 (32.6%)Pulmonary manifestations130 (91.6%)59 (43.7%)39 (31.7%)28 (31.5%)Cardiac manifestations6 (4.2%)2 (1.5%)0.0832 (1.6%)0.08300.157Intestinal manifestations10 (7.0%)1 (0.7%)0.0054 (3.3%)0.0593 (3.4%)0.059Renal manifestations5 (3.5%)3 (2.2%)0.41400.0461 (1.1%)0.317Neurological manifestations36 (25.4%)22 (16.3%)0.01218 (14.6%)0.00310 (11.2%)0.035Figure 1.Changes in BVASFigure 2.Steroid treatmentConclusion:MEPO effectively controlled systemic and respiratory EGPA symptoms in a large European cohort, with no major safety concerns.References:[1]Wechsler et al. MEPO or Placebo for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis. NEJM. 2017Disclosure of Interests:Alessandra Bettiol: None declared, Maria Letizia Urban: None declared, Federico Alberici: None declared, Carlo Agostini: None declared, Chiara Baldini: None declared, Enrica Bozzolo: None declared, Paolo Cameli: None declared, Nunzio Crimi: None declared, Stefano Del Giacco: None declared, Allyson Egan: None declared, Georgina Espigol-Frigole Consultant of: Roche and Janssen, Mara Felicetti: None declared, Marco Folci: None declared, Paolo Fraticelli: None declared, Marcello Govoni: None declared, Anna Kernder Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma for performing the LuLa-study., Carlo Lombardi: None declared, Giuseppe Lopalco: None declared, Claudio Lunardi: None declared, Aladdin J Mohammad Speakers bureau: lecture fees from Roche and Elli Lilly Sweden, PI (GiACTA study), Frank Moosig: None declared, Simone Negrini: None declared, Thomas Neumann: None declared, Pavel Novikov Grant/research support from: This work was supported by the 5-100 Project, Sechenov University, Moscow, Giuseppe Paolazzi: None declared, paola parronchi: None declared, Luca Quartuccio Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Vito Racanelli: None declared, Carlo Salvarani: None declared, Maxime Samson: None declared, Jan Schroeder: None declared, Savino Sciascia: None declared, Renato A. Sinico: None declared, Benjamin Terrier: None declared, Paola Toniati: None declared, Domenico Prisco: None declared, Augusto Vaglio: None declared, Giacomo Emmi: None declared

Background:Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), even compared to those with other rheumatic diseases, are thought to often experience a long delay from the onset of symptoms to diagnosis.Objectives:Our aim was to study the association of this delay to the long-term outcome of the disease.Methods:Information on demographics, onset of first symptoms, first physicians visit, time of diagnosis and organ involvement was assessed by self-reported questionnaires among SLE patients in Germany in 2011 (LuLa cohort, n=585). Disease related damage (Brief Index of Lupus Damage; BILD), disease activity (Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire; SLAQ) and health related quality of life (SF-12) were chosen as proxies for outcome. The association to the outcome of the disease was analyzed by linear regression analysis, adjusted for age, disease duration, organ involvement and sex.Results:In our cohort, the mean reported duration between the onset of symptoms and the diagnosis of SLE was 46 months (SD 73), which includes 13 months (SD 41) between the onset of symptoms and the first physicians visit. The participating patients were diagnosed between 1960 and 2004.Linear regression analysis revealed that longer time to diagnosis was associated with (i) higher disease activity (SLAQ, pConclusion:A delay in diagnosis was associated with a worse outcome in SLE (disease activity, disease-related damage and health-related quality of life). Therefore, an early diagnosis seems to be important to improve the long-term outcome of the disease. It will be interesting to see whether adopting the new EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria can contribute to a faster diagnosis and a better outcome in consequence.The LuLa study is supported by unrestricted grants from GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma.Disclosure of Interests:Anna Kernder Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma for performing the LuLa-study., Jutta Richter Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma for performing the LuLa-study., Rebecca Fischer-Betz Consultant of: UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Pfizer., Borgi Winkler-Rohlfing: None declared, Martin Aringer Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Matthias Schneider Grant/research support from: GSK, UCB, Abbvie, Consultant of: Abbvie, Alexion, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Lilly, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Chugai, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gamal Chehab Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma for performing the LuLa-study.