ABSTRACT
Background/Aims Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a multi-system disease with a range of management options. Treatment may vary by geographic location. We compared disease characteristics and prescribing practices in the UK and Europe in the post-Covid era. Methods The ASSIST study was a cross-sectional observational study of PsA patients aged 18 years and older selected from 24 centres across 5 countries (UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain) between July 2021 and March 2022 (IRAS: 287039). Patients attending a face-to-face appointment with a diagnosis of PsA made by a rheumatologist were selected by systematic sampling at each centre and treated in routine clinical practice. Patient and disease characteristics, current treatment and treatment decisions (medications unchanged, switched, added or reduced) were recorded. The analysis was descriptive, with no imputation of missing data. Results 503 patients were included, with arthritis subtype, patient age, disease activity and duration shown (Table 1). Physician- and patient-reported disease severity was highest in the UK, where median patient age was lowest. Conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDS constituted a higher percentage of current PsA treatment in UK than continental Europe (66.4% vs 44.9%), whereas biologic use was more frequent in Europe (68.1% vs 36.4%). Adalimumab was the most commonly used biologic in the UK and Spain. Adalimumab and secukinumab were equally used in Germany, and ixekizumab and adalimumab were joint-first in Italy. Implementing change to the current PsA treatment was most common in the UK, predominantly being a treatment increase. This may reflect the higher level of disease activity or younger patient age in the UK than other countries, as treatment escalation is more likely earlier in the disease course. In the UK, treatment escalation was more commonly achieved by medication addition (26.2%) than medication switch (14%) or dose increase (7.5%). In Europe, medication addition and switch were of more similar frequency (10.9% vs 9.85%). Conclusion Disease characteristics and treatment strategies varied between countries, but particularly between UK and the rest of Europe. In contrast to mainland Europe, csDMARDs predominated in the UK, perhaps reflecting current NICE guidelines. Treatment escalation was most common in the UK, in keeping with higher disease activity. (Table Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic telemedicine tools rapidly and widely gained acceptance as indispensable management tools for the continuum of clinical care in rheumatic diseases. They have been adopted in position papers and guidelines for the management of rheumatic diseases in adult patients. Objectives: Evaluation of the use of video consultation as one form of tele-medicine before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns among Rheumatology physicians in Germany. The survey results are expected to support the optimization and implementation of video consultation (VC) into routine clinical practice in rheumatology, providing long-term benefts for both parties, patients and their treating rheumatologists. Methods: Cross-sectional nationwide online survey among German rheumatolo-gists and rheumatologists in training. The survey was promoted by newsletters sent by means of mail and Twitter posts to members of the German Society for Rheumatology (n=1,650) and German Professional Society for Rheumatology (n=527). Results: Reported data refer to 205 participants. The majority of respondents was male (59%), older than 40 years (90%) and specialized in internal medicine/rheumatology (85%). They were divided into two groups: 'digital users' (38%) and 'digital non-users' (62%). Users employing telemedicine (TM) but never VC were defned as 'TM-users' (10%). Those using TM and VC were classifed as 'VC-users' (27%). 'Non-users' negated the use of VC and TM respectively. Knowledge on telemedicine was self-rated as 4 (median on a Likert Scale 1 (very high) to 6 (very low)) with a signifcant difference between user (VC-user 2.7±1.2, TM-user 3.2±1.1) and non-user (4.4±1.3). The Figure 1 shows a signifcant increase in the use of VC during the lockdown periods. Even between the lockdown phases, VC use was higher than in the pre-pandemic phase. Reasons for VC non-use in TM-user and non-user were administrative/technical efforts (21%), lack of technical equipment (15%), time constraints (12%), time required for individual VC sessions (12%), inadequate reimbursement (11%), lack of demand from patients (11%), data security concerns (9%), poor internet connection (8%), and lack of Scientific evaluation/evidence (5%). Based on the experience gained, physicians considered the following clinical situations to be particularly suitable for VC: follow-up visits (VC-user 79%, TM-user 62%, non-user 47%), emergency consultations (VC-user 20%, TM-user 33%, non-user 20%), and patients presenting for the frst time (VC-user 11%, TM-user 19%, non-user 8%). Conclusion: Despite the fact that the current pandemic situation, with social distancing and several lockdowns, provides an ideal environment for the implementation of new remote care forms such as VC, their use and acceptance remained below expectations. Given the reported decline in physician face-to-face consultations during the pandemic, these fndings are even more concerning. The identi-fed reasons for non-utilization should be addressed by policy makers, payers and medical societies to provide better foundations for future innovative care models.
ABSTRACT
Digitalization in medicine is of major interest since the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. This article tries to present the induced changes and technical solutions with respect to the different parts in the patient journey. Symptom checkers, new health applications, digital appointment management etc. are described. Apart from the technical and digital possibilities, the changes in the quality of communication additionally have to be mentioned. There is an urgent need for further technical standardization including the interfaces. In many cases further studies must confirm the equivalence of digital applications in comparison to analogue techniques.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Rheumatic Diseases , Telemedicine , Humans , Pandemics , Rheumatic Diseases/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
For several years video consultations have been regarded as a new form of medical healthcare infrastructure, in addition to personal doctor-patient contacts and have also been partly promoted. The COVID-19 pandemic brought unexpected topicality and attention to the use of video consultations. The National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung) decided on special regulations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which reduce previous obstacles to the use of telemedicine and video consultations (and also partly of conventional telephony). The present statement of the German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh) on the use of video consultations is intended to give an overview of in which form and with which limitations video consultations can be used in rheumatology in Germany. It sketches an outlook on how video consultations can undertake which functions in rheumatological care in the future.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Rheumatology , Telemedicine , Germany , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, in recent months we have experienced deep changes in our daily and professional lives. In the context of pandemic containment, routine rheumatological procedures have changed in many areas. To guarantee sufficient protection against the infection for patients and staff, telemedicine (especially telephone and video consultation) has increasingly been used. Due to the Digital Healthcare Act (DiGAV), whereby patients will have a legal claim to specific digital health applications in Germany, medical apps and wearables will offer new opportunities for telemedical monitoring. This article provides an overview of telemedical care options in the field of rheumatology. Furthermore, opportunities and limitations of telemedicine in rheumatology are reviewed.