1. Lab tests are expensive here and in my case they aren’t very useful because the results tend to be all over the place.
Continuous monitoring (assuming the results weren’t super-noisy or plain wrong) might help me understand not just what makes my UA level go up and down but what factors make the biggest difference. Knowing for a fact that changing some of my habits makes a significant difference would be a great motivator.
I wouldn’t even mind invasive monitoring if I trusted the reliability of the measurements. A cheap and non-invasive monitoring method would require a lot less trust for me to bother giving it a try.
2. Chronic arthritis is effectively a disability.
3. If someone claimed some kind of monitoring could predict flare-ups, I’d be skeptical. But if it actually worked, it would be awesome.
For one thing, I’d know when to take colchicine. While it is a pretty nasty drug, it’s in my experience less harmful than the alternatives as long as you don’t take it for weeks on end. Trouble is, it’s more effective when you take it as a prophylactic instead of taking it only when symptoms show up. Advance warning would hopefully allow us to take the drug early enough to make it as effective as it can be while giving our bodies a break when colchicine isn’t needed.