Core Curriculum to Facilitate the Expansion of a Rheumatology Practice to Include Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants.

OBJECTIVE: Due to an aging population, increasing prevalence of rheumatic disease, and a growing supply and demand gap of rheumatology providers, innovative solutions are needed to meet the needs of persons with rheumatic conditions. Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have been identified as a group of health professionals who could help address the workforce shortage. The Executive Committee of the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (ARHP), a division of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), charged a task force to facilitate the preparation of NPs/PAs to work in a rheumatology practice setting. METHODS: The task force, consisting of private practice and academic rheumatologists, and NPs and PAs, from both adult and pediatric settings, conducted a needs assessment survey of current NPs and PAs to identify mechanisms for acquiring rheumatology knowledge. Through face-to-face and webinar meetings, and incorporating stakeholder feedback, the task force designed a rheumatology curriculum outline to enrich the training of new NPs and PAs joining rheumatology practice. RESULTS: Informed by the needs assessment data and stakeholders, an NP/PA rheumatology curriculum outline was developed and endorsed by the ACR Board of Directors for use by community-based and academic rheumatology practices, whether pediatric or adult, who desire to add NPs and PAs to their practice setting. CONCLUSION: As rheumatology is facing workforce shortages, the ACR/ARHP rheumatology curriculum outline can be utilized to train NPs and PAs and create more efficient integration of NPs and PAs into rheumatology practice.

The global challenges and opportunities in the practice of rheumatology: white paper by the World Forum on Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) represent a multitude of degenerative, inflammatory and auto-immune conditions affecting millions of people worldwide. Persons with these diseases may potentially experience severe chronic pain, joint damage, increasing disability and even death. With an increasingly ageing population, the prevalence and burden of RMDs are predicted to increase, placing greater demands on the global practice of rheumatology and related healthcare budgets. Effective treatment of RMDs currently faces a number of challenges in both the developed and developing world, and individual countries may face more specific local challenges. However, limited understanding of the burden of RMDs amongst public health professionals and policy-makers means that these diseases are often not considered a public health priority. The objective of this review is to increase awareness of the RMDs and to identify opportunities to address RMD challenges on both a local and global scale. On 26 September 2014, rheumatology experts from five different continents met at the World Forum on Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (WFRMD) to discuss and identify some key challenges for the RMDs community today. The outcomes are presented in this review, focusing on access to rheumatology services, diagnostics and therapies, rheumatology education and training and on clinical trials, as well as investigator-initiated and epidemiological research. The long-term vision of the WFRMD is to increase perception of the RMDs as a major burden to society and to explore potential opportunities to improve global and local RMD care.

The role of acetaminophen in the treatment of osteoarthritis.

The major clinical guidelines recommend the use of acetaminophen (acetyl-para-aminophenol [APAP]) for the treatment of mild-to-moderate symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) and only recommend the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) after APAP failure. This recommendation is based on the efficacy of APAP in treating OA and its relatively benign side-effect profile compared with NSAIDs. NSAIDs are associated with a high risk of adverse events, particularly those of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. A large number of studies in OA have compared APAP with a variety of selective and nonselective NSAIDs and typically found greater efficacy with NSAIDs. This advantage, however, is mainly the result of increased efficacy in patients with more severe disease, and is viewed as a relatively small analgesic advantage in some studies and meta-analyses. Many of these same studies have reported little or no difference in safety between APAP and NSAIDs, but these results are typically based on short-term studies. Results from meta-analyses on the safety of NSAIDs almost unanimously confirm elevated risk of GI complications. The analgesic mechanism of APAP is still not well understood. However, the notion that APAP has no anti-inflammatory effect has been challenged in recent years with increasing data that suggest it may have an effect on inflammation distinct from that seen with NSAIDs. A variety of mechanistic hypotheses have been proposed.

The use of therapeutic interchange for biologic therapies.

Therapeutic interchange is the practice of switching or dispensing drugs that are chemically distinct but therapeutically similar in terms of their efficacy, safety, and tolerability profiles. The stated goal of therapeutic interchange is to achieve an improved or neutral outcome with the new agent while reducing overall treatment costs. Until recently, most interchange programs have been limited to switches within drug classes, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and generally to drugs that use the same routes of administration. Therapeutic interchange now is being applied to some biologic agents, such as those used to treat psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In some cases, these agents differ in structure and mode of administration. Patients who require a biologic agent are often difficult to manage, and the comorbidities that are prevalent in these patients further complicate management and agent selection. Population-based outcomes among various agents may not appear notably different, but because there is no a priori means to determine the effects of a given biologic agent on any individual patient, therapeutic interchange is inadvisable once a patient receiving RA or psoriasis therapy has been stabilized. However, if a biologic agent has been designated as preferred on a formulary, it is reasonable to initiate treatment with that agent in a patient who is naive to biologic therapy if that agent is not contraindicated. Respectful, two-way communication between health care professionals and managed care organizations (MCOs) will help ensure that a patient receives the appropriate therapy at the right time.