Real-world effectiveness of select biologic and DMARD monotherapy and combination therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: results from the RADIUS observational registry.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of select biologics, methotrexate (MTX), and other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in the management of adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in routine clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: RADIUS (Rheumatoid Arthritis DMARD Intervention and Utilization Study) comprises two prospective, 5-year, observational registries of over 10 000 patients. Over 4600 patients who initiated MTX or a biologic regimen (etanercept [ETN], infliximab [INF], ETN + MTX, and INF + MTX) and who had at least one on-regimen, follow-up evaluation, were included in this analysis. Adalimumab was not included because it had not yet received FDA approval at RADIUS initiation. Other common DMARD regimens (N = 762) were also compared with MTX. Patients who initiated less commonly used regimens, such as anakinra or cyclosporine, and those who did not have at least one on-regimen, follow-up evaluation, were not eligible for this analysis. Because ESR/CRP measurements were often not available, a modified ACR20 response (mACR20), defined as three out of four response criteria excluding ESR/CRP, was used to assess response at 12 months. Logistic regression analysis was performed to control for baseline covariates that may affect outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a mACR20 response at 12 months post-RADIUS entry. RESULTS: After adjusting for baseline covariates, patients receiving either ETN + MTX or ETN monotherapy were more likely to achieve a mACR20 response at 12 months than patients receiving MTX alone (odds ratio [OR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.52; p < 0.01 and OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.47; p < 0.05, respectively). Conversely, patients treated with MTX + leflunomide (LEF) were less likely to achieve a mACR20 response than those receiving MTX alone (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96; p < 0.05). Significant differences were not observed between patients receiving MTX alone and either INF + MTX, MTX + hydroxychloroquine, MTX + hydroxychloroquine + sulfasalazine, INF monotherapy, or LEF monotherapy. CONCLUSION: These data from routine rheumatology clinical practice settings highlight the effectiveness of common biologic and DMARD therapies, and provide additional data beyond those of randomized, controlled trials.

Using mobile DXA to improve access to osteoporosis care: unit design, program development, implementation, and outcomes.

Osteoporosis diagnosis and monitoring is best accomplished with dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), but technology availability can hinder access to care. We designed a mobile DXA program incorporating a Hologic Delphi-C trade mark bone densitometer housed in a specially configured 30-ft Winnebago trade mark. The mobile DXA program provided osteoporosis testing and education at the convenience of the patient's primary care site within our rural health care system. DXA results were sent electronically to the patient's physician within 48-72 h. The mobile DXA patient group tended to be older and at high risk for future fracture. The service provided was rated as excellent by patients. Given the volume of patients studied, the program was financially self-sustaining. Other healthcare systems or groups should consider development of a similar program.

"The rheumatologist can see you now": Successful implementation of an advanced access model in a rheumatology practice.

OBJECTIVE: To provide rheumatologic care to patients in a timely and patient-centered manner. METHODS: We developed and implemented processes to measure and help eliminate backlog, created access time for same-day patients, and retooled the appointments process to be more efficient and patient focused. In addition, we developed a protocol to be used by our primary care colleagues to care for osteoarthritis of the knee in a standardized manner. RESULTS: The third available rheumatology appointment fell from about 60 days to <2 days. Cancellations fell from 40% to <20%. Patient satisfaction measures (composite score, physician score, and accessibility score) improved significantly. The number of new patients seen for knee osteoarthritis decreased by 6.7%, whereas the number of new rheumatoid arthritis referrals increased by 50.4%. Financial performance improved as well. CONCLUSIONS: This advanced access model in a busy academic rheumatology practice demonstrated considerable improvement in access, patient satisfaction, and finances. Using a team approach, we are now able to give the patient the rheumatologic care they want and need at a time they want and need it.