Search

BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis requiring long-term treatment with regular monitoring by a rheumatologist to achieve good health outcomes. Since people with RA may wish to monitor their own disease activity with a smartphone app, it is important to understand the functions and quality of apps for this purpose. ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to assess the features and quality of apps to assist people to monitor their RA disease activity by (1) summarizing the available apps, particularly the instruments used for measurement of RA disease activity; (2) comparing the app features with American College of Rheumatology and European League against Rheumatism (ACR and EULAR) guidelines for monitoring of RA disease activity; and (3) rating app quality with the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). MethodsSystematic searches of the New Zealand iTunes and Google Play app stores were used to identify all apps for monitoring of RA disease activity that could be used by people with RA. The apps were described by both key metadata and app functionality. App adherence with recommendations for monitoring of RA disease activity in clinical practice was evaluated by identifying whether apps included calculation of a validated composite disease activity measure and recorded results for future retrieval. App quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the MARS. ResultsThe search identified 721 apps in the Google Play store and 216 in the iTunes store, of which 19 unique apps met criteria for inclusion (8 from both app stores, 8 iTunes, and 3 Google Play). In total, 14 apps included at least one validated instrument measuring RA disease activity; 7 of 11 apps that allowed users to enter a joint count used the standard 28 swollen and tender joint count; 8 apps included at least one ACR and EULAR-recommended RA composite disease activity (CDA) measure; and 10 apps included data storage and retrieval. Only 1 app, Arthritis Power, included both an RA CDA measure and tracked data, but this app did not include the standard 28 tender and swollen joint count. The median overall MARS score for apps was 3.41/5. Of the 6 apps that scored ≥4/5 on the overall MARS rating, only 1 included a CDA score endorsed by ACR and EULAR; however, this app did not have a data tracking function. ConclusionsThis review found a lack of high-quality apps for longitudinal assessment of RA disease activity. Current apps fall into two categories: simple calculators primarily for rheumatologists and data tracking tools for people with RA. The latter do not uniformly collect data using validated instruments or composite disease activity measures. There is a need for appropriate, high-quality apps for use by rheumatologists and patients together in co-management of RA.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron rapidly evolved over 2022, causing three waves of infection due to sub-variants BA.1, BA.2 and BA.4/5. We sought to characterise symptoms and viral loads over the course of COVID-19 infection with these sub-variants in otherwise-healthy, vaccinated, non-hospitalised adults, and compared data to infections with the preceding Delta variant of concern (VOC). Methods: In a prospective, observational cohort study, healthy vaccinated UK adults who reported a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or lateral flow test, self-swabbed on alternate weekdays until day 10. We compared participant-reported symptoms and viral load trajectories between infections caused by VOCs Delta and Omicron (sub-variants BA.1, BA.2 or BA.4/5), and tested for relationships between vaccine dose, symptoms and PCR cycle threshold (Ct) as a proxy for viral load using Chi-squared (χ2) and Wilcoxon tests. Results: 563 infection episodes were reported among 491 participants. Across infection episodes, there was little variation in symptom burden (4 [IQR 3–5] symptoms) and duration (8 [IQR 6–11] days). Whilst symptom profiles differed among infections caused by Delta compared to Omicron sub-variants, symptom profiles were similar between Omicron sub-variants. Anosmia was reported more frequently in Delta infections after 2 doses compared with Omicron sub-variant infections after 3 doses, for example: 42% (25/60) of participants with Delta infection compared to 9% (6/67) with Omicron BA.4/5 (χ2 P < 0.001; OR 7.3 [95% CI 2.7–19.4]). Fever was less common with Delta (20/60 participants; 33%) than Omicron BA.4/5 (39/67; 58%; χ2 P = 0.008; OR 0.4 [CI 0.2–0.7]). Amongst infections with an Omicron sub-variants, symptoms of coryza, fatigue, cough and myalgia predominated. Viral load trajectories and peaks did not differ between Delta, and Omicron, irrespective of symptom severity (including asymptomatic participants), VOC or vaccination status. PCR Ct values were negatively associated with time since vaccination in participants infected with BA.1 (β = -0.05 (CI -0.10–0.01); P = 0.031); however, this trend was not observed in BA.2 or BA.4/5 infections. Conclusion: Our study emphasises both the changing symptom profile of COVID-19 infections in the Omicron era, and ongoing transmission risk of Omicron sub-variants in vaccinated adults. Trial registration: NCT04750356. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information regarding effect of haemolysis on the determination of Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 17 (CCL17)/thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) and CCL22/ macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC). It mentions information on impact of increase in TARC on platelets. It presents information on impact of haemolysis on chemokines.

Motivation: Observational cohort studies that track vaccine and infection responses offer real-world data to inform pandemic policy. Translating biological hypotheses, such as whether different patterns of accumulated antigenic exposures confer differing antibody responses, into analysis code can be onerous, particularly when source data is dis-aggregated., Results: The R package chronogram introduces the class chronogram, where metadata is seamlessly aggregated with sparse infection episode, clinical and laboratory data. Each experimental modality is added sequentially, allowing the incorporation of new data, such as specialized time-consuming research assays, or their downstream analyses. Source data can be any rectangular data format, including database tables (such as structured query language databases). This supports annotations that aggregate data types/sources, for example, combining symptoms, molecular testing, and sequencing of one or more infectious episodes in a pathogen-agnostic manner. Chronogram arranges observational data to allow the translation of biological hypotheses into their corresponding code via a shared vocabulary., Availability and Implementation: Chronogram is implemented R and available under an MIT licence at: https://www.github.com/FrancisCrickInstitute/chronogram ; a user manual is available at: https://franciscrickinstitute.github.io/chronogram/., Competing Interests: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and COVID-19 vaccination have resulted in complex exposure histories. Rapid assessment of the effects of these exposures on neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial for informing vaccine strategy and epidemic management. We aimed to investigate heterogeneity in individual-level and population-level antibody kinetics to emerging variants by previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure history, to examine implications for real-time estimation, and to examine the effects of vaccine-campaign timing., Methods: Our Bayesian hierarchical model of antibody kinetics estimated neutralising-antibody trajectories against a panel of SARS-CoV-2 variants quantified with a live virus microneutralisation assay and informed by individual-level COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection histories. Antibody titre trajectories were modelled with a piecewise linear function that depended on the key biological quantities of an initial titre value, time the peak titre is reached, set-point time, and corresponding rates of increase and decrease for gradients between two timing parameters. All process parameters were estimated at both the individual level and the population level. We analysed data from participants in the University College London Hospitals-Francis Crick Institute Legacy study cohort (NCT04750356) who underwent surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 either through asymptomatic mandatory occupational health screening once per week between April 1, 2020, and May 31, 2022, or symptom-based testing between April 1, 2020, and Feb 1, 2023. People included in the Legacy study were either Crick employees or health-care workers at three London hospitals, older than 18 years, and gave written informed consent. Legacy excluded people who were unable or unwilling to give informed consent and those not employed by a qualifying institution. We segmented data to include vaccination events occurring up to 150 days before the emergence of three variants of concern: delta, BA.2, and XBB 1.5. We split the data for each wave into two categories: real-time and retrospective. The real-time dataset contained neutralising-antibody titres collected up to the date of emergence in each wave; the retrospective dataset contained all samples until the next SARS-CoV-2 exposure of each individual, whether vaccination or infection., Findings: We included data from 335 participants in the delta wave analysis, 223 (67%) of whom were female and 112 (33%) of whom were male (median age 40 years, IQR 22-58); data from 385 participants in the BA.2 wave analysis, 271 (70%) of whom were female and 114 (30%) of whom were male (41 years, 22-60); and data from 248 participants in the XBB 1.5 wave analysis, 191 (77%) of whom were female, 56 (23%) of whom were male, and one (<1%) of whom preferred not to say (40 years, 21-59). Overall, we included 968 exposures (vaccinations) across 1895 serum samples in the model. For the delta wave, we estimated peak titre values as 490·0 IC 50 (95% credible interval 224·3-1515·9) for people with no previous infection and as 702·4 IC 50 (300·8-2322·7) for people with a previous infection before omicron; the delta wave did not include people with a previous omicron infection. For the BA.2 wave, we estimated peak titre values as 858·1 IC 50 (689·8-1363·2) for people with no previous infection, 1020·7 IC 50 (725·9-1722·6) for people with a previous infection before omicron, and 1422·0 IC 50 (679·2-3027·3) for people with a previous omicron infection. For the XBB 1.5 wave, we estimated peak titre values as 703·2 IC 50 (415·0-3197·8) for people with no previous infection, 1215·9 IC 50 (511·6-7338·7) for people with a previous infection before omicron, and 1556·3 IC 50 (757·2-7907·9) for people with a previous omicron infection., Interpretation: Our study shows the feasibility of real-time estimation of antibody kinetics before SARS-CoV-2 variant emergence. This estimation is valuable for understanding how specific combinations of SARS-CoV-2 exposures influence antibody kinetics and for examining how COVID-19 vaccination-campaign timing could affect population-level immunity to emerging variants., Funding: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UK Research and Innovation, UK Medical Research Council, Francis Crick Institute, and Genotype-to-Phenotype National Virology Consortium., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CSw receives grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche-Ventana, Pfizer, and Archer Dx; receives personal fees from Genentech, the Sarah Canon Research Institute, Medicxi, Bicycle Therapeutics, GRAIL, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Illumina, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, and Roche-Ventana; holds stock options in Apogen Biotech, Epic Biosciences, GRAIL, and Achilles Therapeutics; is a member of a scientific advisory board for Bicycle Therapeutics, GRAIL, Relay Therapeutics, SAGA Diagnostics, and Achilles Therapeutics; is a co-founder of Achilles Therapeutics; receives consulting fees from Genentech, Medicxi, MetaboMed, Novartis, the China Innovation Centre of Roche, and the Sarah Cannon Research Institute; and receives honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Illumina, and Incyte. DLVB receives grants, paid to their institution, from AstraZeneca. EJC is an unpaid member of the Infection, Prevention and Control Committee of the UK Kidney Association. RB and DLVB are members of the Genotype-to-Phenotype 2 Consortium. AJK received the Sir Henry Dale Fellowship, jointly funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (grant number 206250/Z/17/Z). AJK and DH were supported by the National Institutes of Health (1R01AI141534–01A1). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

People with chronic conditions like rheumatoid arthritis (RA) self-manage on a day to day basis. They may be able to assess disease activity and communicate this via an app to their healthcare team to enable clinical review for medical management at the most appropriate times. This work describes the succesful co-design of a patient-held app for monitoring and communication of RA disease activity.