AB1346-HPR REAL-WORLD EFFECTIVENESS AND PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF SYMPTOM CHECKERS IN RHEUMATOLOGY: INTERIM REPORT FROM THE PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER BETTER STUDY
Authors: J. Knitza, J. Mohn, C. Bergmann, E. Kampylafka, M. Hagen, D. Bohr, E. Araujo, M. Englbrecht, D. Simon, A. Kleyer, T. Meinderink, W. Vorbrüggen, C. B. Von der Decken, S. Kleinert, A. Ramming, J. Distler, P. Bartz-Bazzanella, G. Schett, A. Hueber, M. Welcker
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2020)

Background: Symptom checkers (SC) promise to reduce diagnostic delay, misdiagnosis and effectively guide patients through healthcare systems. They are increasingly used, however little evidence exists about their real-life effectiveness. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, usage time, usability and perceived usefulness of two promising SC, ADA ( www.ada.com ) and Rheport ( www.rheport.de ). Furthermore, symptom duration and previous symptom checking was recorded. Methods: Cross-sectional interim clinical data from the first of three recruiting centers from the prospective, real-world, multicenter bETTeR-study (DKRS DRKS00017642) was used. Patients newly presenting to a secondary rheumatology outpatient clinic between September and December 2019 completed the ADA and Rheport SC. The time and answers were recorded and compared to the patient’s actual diagnosis. ADA provides up to 5 disease suggestions, Rheport calculates a risk score for rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) (≥1=RMD). For both SC the sensitivity, specificity was calculated regarding RMDs. Furthermore, patients completed a survey evaluating the SC usability using the system usability scale (SUS), perceived usefulness, previous symptom checking and symptom duration. Results: Of the 129 consecutive patients approached, 97 agreed to participate. 38% (37/97) of the presenting patients presented with an RMD (Figure 1). Mean symptom duration was 146 weeks and a mean number of 10 physician contacts occurred previously, to evaluate current symptoms. 56% (54/96) had previously checked their symptoms on the internet using search engines, spending a mean of 6 hours. Rheport showed a sensitivity of 49% (18/37) and specificity of 58% (35/60) concerning RMDs. ADA’s top 1 and top 5 disease suggestions concerning RMD showed a sensitivity of 43% (16/37) and 54% (20/37) and a specificity of 58% (35/60) and 52% (31/60), respectively. ADA listed the correct diagnosis of the patients with RMDs first or within the first 5 disease suggestions in 19% (7/37) and 30% (11/37), respectively. The average perceived usefulness for checking symptoms using ADA, internet search engines and Rheport was 3.0, 3.5 and 3.1 on a visual analog scale from 1-5 (5=very useful). 61% (59/96) and 64% (61/96) would recommend using ADA and Rheport, respectively. The mean SUS score of ADA and Rheport was 72/100 and 73/100. The mean usage time for ADA and Rheport was 8 and 9 minutes, respectively. Conclusion: This is the first prospective, real-world, multicenter study evaluating the diagnostic accuracy and other features of two currently used SC in rheumatology. These interim results suggest that diagnostic accuracy is limited, however SC are well accepted among patients and in some cases, correct diagnosis can be provided out of the pocket within few minutes, saving valuable time. Figure: Acknowledgments: This study was supported by an unrestricted research grant from Novartis. Disclosure of Interests: Johannes Knitza Grant/research support from: Research Grant: Novartis, Jacob Mohn: None declared, Christina Bergmann: None declared, Eleni Kampylafka Speakers bureau: Novartis, BMS, Janssen, Melanie Hagen: None declared, Daniela Bohr: None declared, Elizabeth Araujo Speakers bureau: Novartis, Lilly, Abbott, Matthias Englbrecht Grant/research support from: Roche Pharma, Chugai Pharma Europe, Consultant of: AbbVie, Roche Pharma, RheumaDatenRhePort GbR, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Chugai Pharma Europe, Lilly, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, UCB, David Simon Grant/research support from: Else Kröner-Memorial Scholarship, Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis, Lilly, Arnd Kleyer Consultant of: Lilly, Gilead, Novartis,Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Lilly, Timo Meinderink: None declared, Wolfgang Vorbrüggen: None declared, Cay-Benedict von der Decken: None declared, Stefan Kleinert Shareholder of: Morphosys, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Novartis, Celgene, Roche, Chugai, Janssen, Andreas Ramming Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Gilead, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Janssen, Jörg Distler Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Paid instructor for: Boehringer Ingelheim, Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Peter Bartz-Bazzanella: None declared, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Axel Hueber Grant/research support from: Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Speakers bureau: GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Martin Welcker Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, UCB, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Roche, Celgene, Sanofi, Consultant of: Abbvie, Actelion, Aescu, Amgen, Celgene, Hexal, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Aescu, Amgen, Biogen, Berlin Chemie, Celgene, GSK, Hexal, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB