Thresholds for the 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) using C-reactive protein are lower compared to DAS28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) using C-reactive protein (CRP) and DAS28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) may not be interchangeable. We sought to compare and estimate optimal thresholds for the DA28-CRP for use in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA). METHODS: Patients from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort with baseline and 12 months' data for both DAS28-ESR and DAS28-CRP were examined for correlations and differences between DAS28-CRP and DAS28-ESR across their range of values. Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified thresholds for DAS28-CRP that best corresponded to established thresholds for the DAS28-ESR using the total sample, then stratified by age and sex. Agreement between DAS28-CRP and DAS28-ESR thresholds was assessed with the kappa statistic. RESULTS: The sample included 995 patients with mean (SD) age of 53.7 (14.5) years, 5.8 (2.9) months of symptom duration and 74% were female. DAS28-CRP and DAS28-ESR scores were highly correlated (r= 0.92, p<0.0001), however DAS28-CRP values were consistently lower than DAS28-ESR values. Calculated thresholds for DAS28-CRP were lower with 2.5 for remission, 2.9 for low disease activity, and 4.6 for high disease activity but showed moderate agreement with the DAS28-ESR thresholds (kappa=0.70). CONCLUSIONS: In this large sample of ERA patients, newly estimated thresholds for DAS28-CRP were consistently lower than DAS28-ESR thresholds across the spectrum of disease activity. This may have important clinical implications if inflammatory markers are used interchangeably. Additional external validation of our findings is needed.

Adherence and Treat-to-Target Benchmarks in Older Adults With Gout Initiating Urate-Lowering Therapy in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate urate-lowering therapy (ULT) adherence and treatment-to-target (T2T) serum uric acid (SUA) levels among older adults with gout starting ULT. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada in patients with gout aged ≥66 years newly dispensed ULT between 2010 and 2019. We defined successful T2T as patients having SUA levels <360 µmol/L (6 mg/dL) within 12 months after ULT dispensation. We also assessed adherence to ULT. Multilevel logistic regression clustered by ULT prescriber evaluated patient, physician, and prescription factors associated with reaching target SUA levels. RESULTS: Among 44,438 patients (mean ± SD age 76.0 ± 7.3 years; 64.4% male), 30,057 (67.6%) patients had ≥1 SUA test completed. Overall, 52.3% patients reached SUA target within 12 months, improving from 45.2% in 2010 to 61.2% in 2019 (P < 0.0001). ULT adherence was 55.3% overall and improved annually. Key factors associated with achieving T2T included febuxostat treatment (odds ratio [OR] 11.40, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5.10-25.43) (was only dispensed in 88 patients), ULT adherence (OR 5.17, 95% CI 4.89-5.47), allopurinol starting doses >50 mg (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.14-2.99), colchicine/oral glucocorticoids co-prescription (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14-1.34), and ULT prescription from a rheumatologist. CONCLUSION: Only 52.3% of patients achieved an optimal SUA level within 1 year of ULT initiation. ULT adherence was suboptimal, although improving over time. ULT adherence and higher allopurinol starting doses had the strongest associations of achieving a target SUA level. This study highlights room for improvement in gout management and potential strategies to address care gaps.

Heart failure risk among patients with rheumatoid arthritis starting a TNF antagonist.

BACKGROUND: While heart failure (HF) is associated with elevations in tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α, several trials of TNF antagonists showed no benefit and possibly worsening of disease in those with known severe HF. We studied the risk of new or recurrent HF among a group of patients receiving these agents to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We used data from four different US healthcare programmes. Subjects with RA receiving methotrexate were eligible to enter the study cohort if they added or switched to a TNF antagonist or another non-biological disease modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD). These groups were compared in Cox regression models stratified by propensity score decile and adjusted for oral glucocorticoid dosage, prior HF hospitalisations, and the use of loop diuretics. RESULTS: We compared 8656 new users of a nbDMARD with 11 587 new users of a TNF antagonist with similar baseline covariates. The HR for the TNF antagonists compared with nbDMARD was 0.85 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.14). The HR was also not elevated in subjects with a history of HF. But, it was elevated prior to 2002 (HR 2.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 10.50, test for interaction p=0.036). Oral glucocorticoids were associated with a dose-related gradient of HF risk: compared with no use, 1≤5 mg HR 1.30 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.85), ≥5 mg HR 1.54 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.19). CONCLUSIONS: TNF antagonists were not associated with a risk of HF hospital admissions compared with nbDMARDs in this RA population.

Achieving remission in clinical practice: lessons from clinical trial data.

This review examines the literature on the frequency of remission associated with different treatment approaches in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA). Trials reporting remission outcomes were identified through searches of the CINAHL, EMBASE, and Medline (PubMed) databases from 2000 through August 2012. Additional literature was identified through hand searching. The proportion of patients achieving remission and/or radiographic non-progression was extracted from each study. Evidence was examined in the context of unified remission criteria and practical considerations for achieving and maintaining remission are discussed. The literature highlights the benefits of early treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) combination therapy, combination therapy with a biologic, and tight control with a pre-specified treatment target in achieving remission in ERA. The added stringency of the 2011 remission criteria may increase the proportion of patients achieving true remission, while identifying predictors of sustained remission may also help patients achieve better radiographic and functional outcomes.

Cardiovascular Risk Factors and the Risk of Discontinuation of Advanced Therapies Due to Treatment Failure in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results From the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to investigate whether cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors are associated with the retention of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or targeted-synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We included participants in the Ontario Best Practices Initiative RA registry who initiated their first bDMARD or tsDMARD. Participants were grouped by the number of baseline CVD risk factors (0, 1, or ≥2). The primary outcome was time-to-discontinuation of therapy for any reason. Secondary outcomes included discontinuation for primary failure, secondary failure, or due to adverse events. Competing risks hazards model, adjusted for clinically important confounders, estimated the association between CVD risk factors and treatment retention. RESULTS: The sample included 872 patients, of which 58% (n = 508) discontinued their b/tsDMARD after a median of 13 months from the time of initiation. The most common causes for treatment discontinuation were primary failure (n = 72), secondary failure (n = 126), or adverse events (n = 133). Patients with no CVD risk factors experienced significantly longer treatment survival compared to patients with 1 or ≥2 CVD risk factors. In multivariable-adjusted analysis, there was no association between all-cause discontinuation and CVD risk factors. However, there was a significant association between the presence of >1 CVD risk factor and treatment discontinuation, notably due to secondary treatment failure, but not due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Multiple CVD risk factors increase the risk of treatment failure in RA, particularly for secondary treatment failure. To improve patient outcomes, future research should focus on developing strategies to identify early treatment nonresponse and investigate the potential modifiability of this association.

Serum Urate Monitoring Among Older Adults With Gout: Initiating Urate-Lowering Therapy in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of, and factors associated with, older adults with gout receiving a serum urate (SUA) test after starting urate-lowering therapy (ULT). METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada in patients ages ≥66 years with gout, newly dispensed ULT between 2010 and 2019. We characterized patients with SUA testing within 6 and 12 months after ULT dispensation. Multilevel logistic regression clustered by ULT prescriber evaluated the factors associated with SUA monitoring within 6 months. RESULTS: We included 44,438 patients with a mean ± SD age of 76.0 ± 7.3 years and 64.4% male. Family physicians prescribed 79.1% of all ULTs. SUA testing was lowest in 2010 (56.4% at 6 months) and rose over time to 71.3% in 2019 (P < 0.0001). Compared with rheumatologists, family physicians (odds ratio [OR] 0.26 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.23-0.29]), internists (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.29-0.39]), nephrologists (OR 0.37 [95% CI 0.30-0.45]), and other specialties (OR 0.25 [95% CI 0.21-0.29]) were less likely to test SUA, as were male physicians (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.83-0.91]). Patient factors associated with lower odds of SUA monitoring included rural residence (OR 0.81 [95% CI 0.77-0.86]), lower socioeconomic status (OR 0.91 [95% CI 0.85-0.97]), and patient comorbidities. Chronic kidney disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and coprescription of colchicine/oral corticosteroids (OR 1.31 [95% CI 1.23-1.40]) were correlated with increased SUA testing. CONCLUSION: SUA testing is suboptimal among older adults with gout initiating ULT but is improving over time. ULT prescriber, patient, and prescription characteristics were correlated with SUA testing.

Low Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Use Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Signal of Concern.

Individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may be at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes.1 Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir has been shown to reduce the risk for hospitalization and death among patients with COVID-19 at risk for progression to severe disease.2.

Understanding COVID-19 Risk in Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Population-Based Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 testing and infection in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) patients versus matched non-IMID comparators from the general population. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, matched cohort study among adult residents from Ontario, Canada, from January 2020 to December 2020. We created cohorts for the following IMIDs: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases, multiple sclerosis (MS), iritis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), polymyalgia rheumatica, and vasculitis. Each patient was matched with 5 patients without IMIDs based on sociodemographic factors. We estimated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 testing and infection in IMID patients and non-IMID patients. Multivariable logistic regressions assessed odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: We studied 493,499 patients with IMIDs and 2,466,946 patients without IMIDs. Patients with IMIDs were more likely to have at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 test versus patients without IMIDs (27.4% versus 22.7%), but the proportion testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was identical (0.9% in both groups). Overall, IMID patients had 20% higher odds of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 (odds ratio 1.20 [95% confidence interval 1.19-1.21]). The odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection varied across IMID groups but was not significantly elevated for most IMID groups compared with non-IMID comparators. The odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection was lower in IBD and MS and marginally higher in RA and iritis. CONCLUSION: Patients across all IMIDs were more likely to be tested for SARS-CoV-2 versus those without IMIDs. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection varied across disease subgroups.

Changes in Service Delivery and Access to Rheumatologists Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Canadian Universal Healthcare Setting.

OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in service delivery and access to rheumatologists before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic periods. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. Patient visits with rheumatologists were ascertained using billing claims data. Contact with rheumatologists was defined separately by the type of patient encounter (including office visits, telemedicine visits, and new patient consultations). Changes in the total weekly volume of encounters and monthly rates after COVID-19 public health measures were imposed were compared to expected baseline rates determined before pandemic onset (March 17, 2020). RESULTS: In the year prior to the pandemic, there were 289,202 patients (of which 96,955 were new consults) seen by 239 rheumatologists. In the 1 year following the pandemic onset, there were 276,686 patients (of which 86,553 were new consults) seen by 247 rheumatologists. In March 2020, there was an immediate 75.9% decrease in outpatient office visits and a rapid rise in telemedicine visits. By September 2021, 49.7% of patient encounters remained telemedicine visits. For new patient consultations, there was an immediate 50% decrease in visits at the pandemic onset, with 54.8% diverted to telemedicine visits in the first year of the pandemic versus 37.4% by September 2021. New rheumatology consultation rates continued decreasing over the study period. CONCLUSION: Rheumatology care delivery has shifted due to the pandemic, with telemedicine increasing sharply early in the pandemic and persisting over time. The pandemic also negatively affected access to rheumatologists, resulting in fewer new consultations and raising concerns for potential delays to diagnosis.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatoid arthritis: data from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI).

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created challenges for patients with RA. We examined the potential impact of the pandemic on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), disease activity and medication profiles, comparing the periods pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. Methods: Patients enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative were included if they had at least one visit to a physician or study interviewer within 12 months before and after the start of pandemic-related closures in Ontario (15 March 2020). Baseline characteristics, disease activity, PROs [i.e. health assessment questionnaire disability index, RA disease activity index (RADAI), European quality of life five-dimension questionnaire], medication use and changes were included. Student's paired two-sample t-tests and McNamar's tests were performed for continuous and categorical variables between time periods. Results: The sample for analysis consisted of 1508 patients, with a mean (s.d.) age of 62.7 (12.5) years, and 79% were female. Despite decreases in the number of in-person visits during the pandemic, there was no significant negative impact on disease activity or PRO scores. The DASs in both periods remained low, with either no clinically significant differences or slight improvement. Scores for mental, social and physical health were either stable or improved. There were statistically significant decreases in conventional synthetic DMARD use (P < 0.0001) and increased Janus kinase inhibitor usage (P = 0.0002). Biologic DMARD use remained stable throughout the pandemic. Conclusion: In this cohort, disease activity and PROs of RA patients remained stable during the COVID-19 pandemic. The longer-term outcomes of the pandemic warrant investigation.

COVID-19 Hospitalizations, Intensive Care Unit Stays, Ventilation, and Death Among Patients With Immune-mediated Inflammatory Diseases Compared to Controls.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization risk in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) compared with matched non-IMID comparators from the general population. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, matched cohort study using health administrative data from January to July 2020 in Ontario, Canada. Cohorts for each of the following IMIDs were assembled: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis, systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), multiple sclerosis (MS), iritis, inflammatory bowel disease, polymyalgia rheumatica, and vasculitis. Each patient was matched with 5 non-IMID comparators based on sociodemographic factors. We compared the cumulative incidence of hospitalizations for COVID-19 and their outcomes between IMID and non-IMID patients. RESULTS: A total of 493,499 patients with IMID (417 hospitalizations) and 2,466,946 non-IMID comparators (1519 hospitalizations) were assessed. The odds of being hospitalized for COVID-19 were significantly higher in patients with IMIDs compared with their matched non-IMID comparators (matched unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.37, adjusted OR 1.23). Significantly higher risk of hospitalizations was found in patients with iritis (OR 1.46), MS (OR 1.83), PsA (OR 2.20), RA (OR 1.42), SARDs (OR 1.47), and vasculitis (OR 2.07). COVID-19 hospitalizations were associated with older age, male sex, long-term care residence, multimorbidity, and lower income. The odds of complicated hospitalizations were 21% higher among all IMID vs matched non-IMID patients, but this association was attenuated after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Patients with IMIDs were at higher risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. This risk was explained in part by their comorbidities.

Statin Use for Primary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Is Low in Inflammatory Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) are at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), yet management of dyslipidemia is infrequently prioritized. We applied Canadian dyslipidemia guidelines to determine how many patients with IA would be eligible for primary prevention with statins. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients with IA in a cardio-rheumatology clinic, with no known CVD and without statin therapy at cohort entry. We stratified patients by Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and summarized the proportion meeting guideline statin-indicated criteria. Multivariable logistic regression analyses determined the association of variables with statin indication after adjustment for age, sex, traditional ASCVD risk factors, and arthritis characteristics. RESULTS: Among 302 patients, most had rheumatoid arthritis (59%). Mean age was 58 years, and 71% were female. Overall, 50% of the cohort was eligible for statin therapy. The majority was low FRS risk category (68%), and the most frequent qualifier for statins was elevated apolipoprotein B (ApoB) levels or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) levels. In the intermediate FRS group, 91% met criteria for statin therapy based on the presence of a coronary artery calcification (CAC) score > 0 or an elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. Male sex, hypertension, elevated ApoB, and a CAC score > 0 were the factors most strongly associated with indication for statin therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Statin therapy is suboptimal in IA despite a significant number of patients meeting indication based on lipoprotein thresholds or CAC scores. Understanding the barriers and potential facilitators of implementing and interpreting these CVD screening tools in IA is needed.

An international audit of the management of dyslipidaemia and hypertension in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from 19 countries.

AIMS: To assess differences in estimated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from different world regions and to evaluate the management and goal attainment of lipids and blood pressure (BP). METHODS AND RESULTS: The survey of CVD risk factors in patients with RA was conducted in 14 503 patients from 19 countries during 2014-19. The treatment goal for BP was <140/90 mmHg. CVD risk prediction and lipid goals were according to the 2016 European guidelines. Overall, 21% had a very high estimated risk of CVD, ranging from 5% in Mexico, 15% in Asia, 19% in Northern Europe, to 31% in Central and Eastern Europe and 30% in North America. Of the 52% with indication for lipid-lowering treatment (LLT), 44% were using LLT. The lipid goal attainment was 45% and 18% in the high and very high risk groups, respectively. Use of statins in monotherapy was 24%, while 1% used statins in combination with other LLT. Sixty-two per cent had hypertension and approximately half of these patients were at BP goal. The majority of the patients used antihypertensive treatment in monotherapy (24%), while 10% and 5% as a two- or three-drug combination. CONCLUSION: We revealed considerable geographical differences in estimated CVD risk and preventive treatment. Low goal attainment for LLT was observed, and only half the patients obtained BP goal. Despite a high focus on the increased CVD risk in RA patients over the last decade, there is still substantial potential for improvement in CVD preventive measures.

Study design for a comprehensive assessment of biologic safety using multiple healthcare data systems.

BACKGROUND: Although biologic treatments have excellent efficacy for many autoimmune diseases, safety concerns persist. Understanding the absolute and comparative risks of adverse events in patient and disease subpopulations is critical for optimal prescribing of biologics. PURPOSE: The Safety Assessment of Biologic Therapy collaborative was federally funded to provide robust estimates of rates and relative risks of adverse events among biologics users using data from national Medicaid and Medicare plus Medicaid dual-eligible programs, Tennessee Medicaid, Kaiser Permanente, and state pharmaceutical assistance programs supplementing New Jersey and Pennsylvania Medicare programs. This report describes the organizational structure of the collaborative and the study population and methods. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study (1998-2007) examined risks of seven classes of adverse events in relation to biologic treatments prescribed for seven autoimmune diseases. Propensity scores were used to control for confounding and enabled pooling of individual-level data across data systems while concealing personal health information. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to analyze study hypotheses. RESULTS: The cohort was composed of 159,000 subjects with rheumatic diseases, 33,000 with psoriasis, and 46,000 with inflammatory bowel disease. This report summarizes demographic characteristics and drug exposures. Separate reports will provide outcome definitions and estimated hazard ratios for adverse events. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive research will improve understanding of the safety of these treatments. The methods described may be useful to others planning similar evaluations.

Patients considered as having undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the differential diagnosis and minimal clinical investigation used prior to making a diagnosis of undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for articles published between January 1950 and December 2008 in Medline and Embase, and for abstracts presented at the 2007 and 2008 meetings of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). Studies including defined cohorts of patients with UPIA were retrieved according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Selected studies were systematically reviewed and relevant data extracted. Baseline characteristics were also recorded to obtain a clinical picture of patients classified as UPIA. RESULTS: Seventy-four articles were included. Of those, 52 reported baseline characteristics. Tremendous variation existed among studies, reflecting the different inclusion/exclusion criteria used. Rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthropathies, osteoarthritis, crystal arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and infections were the most common diagnoses of exclusion for UPIA and made up the other subsets of patients in cohorts with mixed populations. The baseline investigation undertaken prior to diagnosis of UPIA was reported in 7 articles. History, physical examination, tender and swollen joint count, rheumatoid factor, HLA-B27, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and radiographs of hands and feet were the only items mentioned in at least 50% of the reports. CONCLUSION: Studies of UPIA are heterogeneous. Few studies reported on the minimal clinical investigation necessary to arrive at a diagnosis of UPIA. Differential diagnosis usually consisted of the most common rheumatologic conditions but could be vast.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of history-taking and physical examination in undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the diagnostic and prognostic value of history/physical examination among patients with undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review evaluating the association between history/physical examination features and a diagnostic or prognostic outcome. RESULTS: Nineteen publications were included. Advanced age, female sex, and morning stiffness were predictive of a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from UPIA. A higher number of tender and swollen joints, small/large joint involvement in the upper/lower extremities, and symmetrical involvement were associated with progression to RA. Similar features were associated with persistent disease and erosions, while disability at baseline and extraarticular features were predictive of future disability. CONCLUSION: History/physical examination features are heterogeneously reported. Several features predict progression from UPIA to RA or a poor prognosis. Continued measurements in the UPIA population are needed to determine if these features are valid and reliable predictors of outcomes, especially as new definitions for RA and disease states emerge.

Cardiovascular risk factors are negatively associated with rheumatoid arthritis disease outcomes.

AIMS: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the influence of CVD risk factors on RA outcomes is limited. We examined if CVD risk factors alone are associated with RA disease activity and disability. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative, RA registry. Patients were categorized into mutually exclusive CVD categories: (1) No established CVD and no CVD risk factors; (2) CVD risk factors only including ⩾1 of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, or smoking; or (3) history of established CVD event. Multivariable regression analyses examined the effect of CVD status on Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28-ESR), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores at baseline. RESULTS: Of 2033 patients, 50% had at least 1 CVD risk factor, even in the absence of established CVD. The presence of ⩾1 CVD risk factor was independently associated with higher CDAI [ß coefficient 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-2.90, p = 0.02], DAS28-ESR (ß coefficient 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.34, p = 0.01) and HAQ-DI scores (ß coefficient 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.22, p < 0.0001). The total number of CVD risk factors displayed a dose response, as >1 CVD risk factor was associated with higher disease activity and disability, compared with having one or no CVD risk factors. CONCLUSION: CVD risk factors alone, or in combination, are associated with higher disease activity and disability in RA. This emphasizes the importance of risk factor recognition and management, not only to prevent CVD, but also to improve potential RA outcomes.

Evaluation of Rheumatology Workforce Supply Changes in Ontario, Canada, from 2000 to 2030.

Rheumatology workforces are increasingly challenged by too few physicians in face of the growing burden of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Rheumatology is one of the most frequent non-surgical specialty referrals and has the longest wait times for subspecialists. We used a population-based approach to describe changes in the rheumatology workforce, patient volumes and geographic variation in the supply of and access to rheumatologists, in Ontario, Canada, between 2000 and 2019, and projected changes in supply by 2030. Over time, we observed greater feminization of the workforce and increasing age of workforce members. We identified a large regional variation in rheumatology supply. Fewer new patients are seen annually, which likely contributes to increasing wait times and reduced access to care. Strategies and policies to raise the critical mass and improve regional distribution of supply to effectively provide rheumatology care and support the healthcare delivery of patients with RMDs are needed.

Feminization of the Rheumatology Workforce: A Longitudinal Evaluation of Patient Volumes, Practice Sizes, and Physician Remuneration.

OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in clinical activity and remuneration between male and female rheumatologists and to evaluate associations between physician gender and practice sizes and patient volume, accounting for rheumatologists' age, and calendar year effects. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study in Ontario, Canada, between 2000 to 2015 identifying all rheumatologists practicing as full-time equivalents (FTEs) or above and assessed differences in practice sizes (number of unique patients), practice volumes (number of patient visits), and remuneration (total fee-for-service billings) between male and female rheumatologists. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate the effects of gender on practice size and volume separately, accounting for age and year. RESULTS: The number of rheumatologists practicing at ≥ 1 FTE increased from 89 to 120 from 2000 to 2015, with the percentage of females increasing from 27.0% to 41.7%. Males had larger practice sizes and practice volumes. Remuneration was consistently higher for males (median difference of CAD $46,000-102,000 annually). Our adjusted analyses estimated that in a given year, males saw a mean of 606 (95% CI 107-1105) more patients than females did, and had 1059 (95% CI 345-1773) more patient visits. Among males and females combined, there was a small but statistically significant reduction in mean annual number of patient visits, and middle-aged rheumatologists had greater practice sizes and volumes than their younger/older counterparts. CONCLUSION: On average, female rheumatologists saw fewer patients and had fewer patient visits annually relative to males, resulting in lower earnings. Increasing feminization necessitates workforce planning to ensure that populations' needs are met.