Search

BACKGROUND The use of eHealth tools (eg, the internet, mobile apps, and connected devices) in the management of chronic diseases and for rheumatoid arthritis is growing. eHealth may improve the overall quality of care provided to patients with chronic diseases. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this study was to describe eHealth use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis in France. The secondary objectives were to identify associations between patient demographics and disease characteristics and the use of eHealth tools, and assess their expectations of eHealth. METHODS In this cross-sectional, multicenter study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria, were recruited from 5 university hospitals (Bordeaux, Clermont-Ferrand, Limoges, Montpellier, and Toulouse). Patients completed an anonymous self-questionnaire, including demographic data, evaluating their eHealth use (ie, access, support, frequency of use, type of use, and reason for use). The rheumatologist in charge of each patient completed an independent medical questionnaire on disease characteristics, activity of rheumatoid arthritis, and treatments. Data were collected between December 2018 and July 2019. RESULTS Questionnaires were completed by 575 participants, with a mean age of 62 (SD 13) years, 447 (77.7%) of whom were female. Overall, 82.2% (473/575) of the participants had access to eHealth through a computer (402/467, 86.1%), tablet (188/467, 40.2%), or smartphone (221/467, 47.3%). Of these, 36.4% (170/467) of the participants used the internet for health in general, and 28.7% (134/467) used it specifically for rheumatoid arthritis–related reasons. All these 134 patients used eHealth to learn about disease pathology, and 66.4% (89/134) of them used it as a tool to help monitor rheumatoid arthritis. Most patients (87/125, 69.6%) had a paper file, 19.2% (24/125) used a digital tool (spreadsheets, 10/125, 8%; mobile app, 9/125, 7.2%; or website, 5/125, 4%), and 24.8% (31/125) did not use any tools for monitoring. Few patients (16/125, 12.8%) used tools for treatment reminders. About 21.6% (27/125) of the patients using eHealth used a specific app for rheumatoid arthritis. Univariate analysis showed that age, education level, employment status, treatment, comorbidities, membership of a patient association, and patient education program were associated with eHealth use for rheumatoid arthritis. Multivariate analysis showed that membership of a patient association (odds ratio [OR] 5.8, 95% CI 3.0-11.2), use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-1.0), and comorbidities (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8) remained associated with eHealth use for rheumatoid arthritis. Recommendation by a doctor (225/330, 68.2%), ease of use (105/330, 31.8%), and data security (69/330, 20.9%) were factors favoring the use of eHealth. CONCLUSIONS To date, few patients have used eHealth for disease management. The use of a reliable and validated eHealth tool for rheumatoid arthritis could therefore be promoted by rheumatologists and could optimize therapeutic adherence.

Background The use of eHealth tools (eg, the internet, mobile apps, and connected devices) in the management of chronic diseases and for rheumatoid arthritis is growing. eHealth may improve the overall quality of care provided to patients with chronic diseases. Objective The primary objective of this study was to describe eHealth use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis in France. The secondary objectives were to identify associations between patient demographics and disease characteristics and the use of eHealth tools, and assess their expectations of eHealth. Methods In this cross-sectional, multicenter study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria, were recruited from 5 university hospitals (Bordeaux, Clermont-Ferrand, Limoges, Montpellier, and Toulouse). Patients completed an anonymous self-questionnaire, including demographic data, evaluating their eHealth use (ie, access, support, frequency of use, type of use, and reason for use). The rheumatologist in charge of each patient completed an independent medical questionnaire on disease characteristics, activity of rheumatoid arthritis, and treatments. Data were collected between December 2018 and July 2019. Results Questionnaires were completed by 575 participants, with a mean age of 62 (SD 13) years, 447 (77.7%) of whom were female. Overall, 82.2% (473/575) of the participants had access to eHealth through a computer (402/467, 86.1%), tablet (188/467, 40.2%), or smartphone (221/467, 47.3%). Of these, 36.4% (170/467) of the participants used the internet for health in general, and 28.7% (134/467) used it specifically for rheumatoid arthritis–related reasons. All these 134 patients used eHealth to learn about disease pathology, and 66.4% (89/134) of them used it as a tool to help monitor rheumatoid arthritis. Most patients (87/125, 69.6%) had a paper file, 19.2% (24/125) used a digital tool (spreadsheets, 10/125, 8%; mobile app, 9/125, 7.2%; or website, 5/125, 4%), and 24.8% (31/125) did not use any tools for monitoring. Few patients (16/125, 12.8%) used tools for treatment reminders. About 21.6% (27/125) of the patients using eHealth used a specific app for rheumatoid arthritis. Univariate analysis showed that age, education level, employment status, treatment, comorbidities, membership of a patient association, and patient education program were associated with eHealth use for rheumatoid arthritis. Multivariate analysis showed that membership of a patient association (odds ratio [OR] 5.8, 95% CI 3.0-11.2), use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-1.0), and comorbidities (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8) remained associated with eHealth use for rheumatoid arthritis. Recommendation by a doctor (225/330, 68.2%), ease of use (105/330, 31.8%), and data security (69/330, 20.9%) were factors favoring the use of eHealth. Conclusions To date, few patients have used eHealth for disease management. The use of a reliable and validated eHealth tool for rheumatoid arthritis could therefore be promoted by rheumatologists and could optimize therapeutic adherence.

Background:The use of eHealth tools (internet, mobile applications, connected devices) in chronic diseases and in the field of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is growing (1). eHealth may improve the overall care of patients suffering from chronic diseases (2,3).Objectives:The main objective of this study was to describe the use of eHealth by RA patients in France. The secondary objectives were to identify differences in demographic and disease characteristics between patients using eHealth tools or not. We also assessed patients’ expectations about digital devices.Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter study. Patients with RA according to the ACR / EULAR 2010 criteria were recruited in 5 university hospitals (Bordeaux, Clermont-Ferrand, Limoges, Montpellier and Toulouse). Patients completed an anonymous self-questionnaire including demographic data, assessment about the use of eHealth (access, support, frequency of use, type of use, reason for use). The treating rheumatologist of the patient filled in an independent medical questionnaire collecting the disease characteristics, the activity of RA and the treatments. Data were collected from December 2018 to July 2019.Results:The questionnaires were completed by 575 patients, with an average age of 62±13 years, 78% of whom were women. 473 (82%) patients had access to eHealth through a computer (n=402, 86%), a tablet (n=188, 40%) and/or a smartphone (n=221, 47%). Among them, 36% (170/473) used internet for health in general and 29% (134/473) specifically for RA. Regarding the use of eHealth for RA, all patients used it to learn about their disease and 66% (89/134) as a tool to help monitoring RA. Most of them (n=87/125, 70%) had a paper medical record, 24/125 patients (19%) used a digital tool (spreadsheet n=10, 8% and / or mobile application n=9, 7% and / or website n=5, 4%) and 31/125 patients (25%) did not use any tool to monitor their RA. Few patients (16/126, 13%) used numeric reminders for their treatments. A specific application for RA was used by 27/127 patients (21%) using eHealth. Age, level of study, employment, treatment, comorbidities, membership of a patient association group and patient education program were associated with the use of eHealth for RA in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, membership of patient’s association (OR: 5.8 [3.0-11.2]), bDMARDs use (OR: 0.6 [0.4-1]) and comorbidities (OR: 0.7 [0.6-0.8]) remained associated with eHealth use for RA. According to the patients, recommendation by a doctor (n=225/330, 68%), ease of use (n=105/330, 32%) and data security (n=69/330, 21%) were the factors that would favor the use of eHealth.Conclusion:To date, few patients used eHealth for their disease. The use of a reliable and validated eHealth tool in RA could therefore be promoted by rheumatologist and might optimize the therapeutic adherence.References:[1]Mosa ASM, Yoo I, Sheets L. A systematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 10 juill 2012;12:67.[2]Lorig KR, Ritter PL, Laurent DD, Plant K. The internet-based arthritis self-management program: a one-year randomized trial for patients with arthritis or fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum. 15 juill 2008;59(7):1009‑17.[3]Charpentier G, Benhamou P-Y, Dardari D, Clergeot A, Franc S, Schaepelynck-Belicar P, et al. The Diabeo software enabling individualized insulin dose adjustments combined with telemedicine support improvesDisclosure of Interests:Marion Magnol: None declared, Eleonore Berard: None declared, Claire Rempenault: None declared, Benjamin Castagne: None declared, marine pugibet: None declared, Cédric Lukas: None declared, Anne Tournadre: None declared, Pascale Vergne-Salle: None declared, Thomas Barnetche: None declared, Marie-Elise Truchetet: None declared, Adeline Ruyssen-Witrand Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme

Background Macrophages are major effector cells in inflammatory rheumatisms such as Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and Psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Depending on their microenvironment, especially cytokines content, they can display various phenotypes or “polarizations” described as inflammatory (in the presence of IFNγ or GM-CSF) or as alternative (in the presence of IL-4 or IL-10). These cytokines involve JAK/STAT signaling pathway, and their action is expected to be inhibited by JAK inhibitors (JAKi) developed in RA and PsA. How JAKi modulate polarization of macrophage, and whether this phenomenon explains the clinical benefit in RA and PsA is not fully understood. Objectives To evaluate whether JAKi modulate in vitro polarization of monocytes derived macrophages. Methods [Cell culture] CD14+ monocytes were isolated from healthy donors and differentiated as macrophages in the presence of M-CSF. Macrophages were then polarized as inflammatory macrophages (by LPS + IFNγ, or GM-CSF), or as alternative macrophages (by IL-4, or IL-10), in the presence or not of JAKi (500 nM): Baricitinib (JAK1/JAK2 specific), Tofacitinib (JAK1/JAK2/JAK3/Tyk2 specific). [Membrane markers] Surface polarization markers were evaluated by flow cytometry. [Functional assays] Cytokines production in supernatants of macrophages were quantitated by bead-based immunoassay and by ELISA. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) production triggered by LPS and/or IFNγ was assessed by flow cytometry. Phagocytosis of E.coli bioparticles was assessed by flow cytometry. Results We analyzed 12 donors. Membrane polarization markers were: CD40/CD80/CD206 for inflammatory macrophages, CD163/CD16/CD206/CD200R for alternative macrophages. Both JAKi modulated these markers. Regarding the inflammatory polarizations, Baricitinib and Tofacitinib respectively reduced CD40 and CD206 expression. Regarding the alternative polarizations, both drugs inhibited the expression of CD163, CD206 and CD200R. At thecytokines level, both drugs did not significantly modulate the pro-inflammatory/anti-inflammatory balance in supernatants. We observed a slight increase in TNF and IL-6 resulting from LPS/NFkB pathway [1]. However, Baricitinib decreased the inflammatory IP-10, and increased IL-10 production. Both JAKi did not affect ROS production in the presence of LPS. Consistently with the absence of modulation of CD16 surface expression, Baricitinib and Tofacitinib did not affect CD16-dependent phagocytosis. Conclusion Our study shows that despite distinct JAK specificity, Tofacitinib and Baricitinib maintained surface phenotypes close to those of non-activated macrophages This finding was observed whatever was the polarizing condition, thus supporting the potential benefit of JAK inhibitors in different immune diseases. References [1] Pattison MJ, J Immunol, September15, 2012, 189 (6) 2784-2792 Disclosure of Interests Marion Magnol: None declared, Benjamin Rauwel: None declared, Souraya Sayegh: None declared, Katy Diallo: None declared, Michel Baron: None declared, Emmanuelle Lacassagne: None declared, Jean-Frederic Boyer: None declared, Adeline Ruyssen-Witrand: None declared, Arnaud Constantin: None declared, Jean-Luc Davignon Grant/research support from: Pfizer Passerelle Grant, Yannick Degboe Grant/research support from: Celgene PARTNER Fellowship

Background:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients are at increased risk of infections, some of which could be prevented in part by vaccination (1). Influenza and pneumococcal vaccines are recommended in RA (2). However, vaccination coverage of these patients remains very low. Five years ago, we found in a previous study that vaccination rates in France were 55% for pneumococcal and 60% for influenza vaccines (3).Objectives:The aim of our study was to evaluate the vaccination rate among RA patients, compare it with our previous results, and identify factors associated with non-vaccination.Methods:We conducted a cross sectional multicentric observational study in the rheumatology departments of 5 university hospitals in France. Data were collected from December 2018 to July 2019. Outpatients and hospitalized adult patients with RA according to the ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria were included. Data were collected during a single visit through an anonymous questionnaire completed by the patients. Pearson Chi-squared analysis and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare characteristics of vaccinated versus non vaccinated patients.Results:584 patients (77.9% of women, mean age 61.8±12.6 years old) were included. 81.7% were RF and/or ACPA positive, with a mean RA duration of 15.7±10.5 years, 58.2% were treated with methotrexate (MTX), and 68.6% with a biologic. Vaccination rate against pneumococcal was 78.9% (versus 55% in 2013, pConclusion:Vaccination rate against pneumococcal increased over the last 5 years but remained stable for influenza vaccine in French RA patients. This could be improved with patient’s information and education, especially in patients age under 65, biologic naïve and with a bad opinion about vaccination.References:[1] Doran MF, Crowson CS et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Sep;46(9):2287–93.[2]van Assen S, Agmon-Levin N et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Mar;70(3):414–22.[3] Hua C, Morel J et al. Rheumatol Oxf Engl. 2015 Apr;54(4):748–50.Disclosure of Interests:Claire Rempenault: None declared, Thomas Barnetche: None declared, Marion Magnol: None declared, Benjamin Castagne: None declared, marine pugibet: None declared, Eleonore Berard: None declared, Marie-Elise Truchetet: None declared, Pascale Vergne-Salle: None declared, Anne Tournadre: None declared, Adeline Ruyssen-Witrand Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Cédric Lukas: None declared