ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine next steps for lay health worker (LHW) intervention research, specifically in patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), there is a need to establish what strategies have been effective for chronic disease management thus far. The goal of this scoping review is to collate the literature of LHW interventions for adults with RMDs to inform next steps for LHW research. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in the following databases from inception to September 2021: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and The Cochrane Library. Studies retrieved were then screened for eligibility against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were eligible and included in this review. The most common RMDs studied, not mutually exclusive, were osteoarthritis (n = 13), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 9), and unspecified or other RMD (n = 14). Most studies had a homogenous patient population, enrolling White, non-Hispanic, or Latina women over the age of 60 (n = 13). Eight studies observed statistically significant results in the intervention arm compared with the control. Only one of these studies exhibited sustained treatment effects past one year. CONCLUSION: There are not enough data to conclude if LHW interventions have a positive, null, or negative effect on patients with RMDs. Future LHW interventions should specify a priori hypotheses, be powered to detect statistical significance for primary outcomes, employ a theoretical framework, include an active control, describe training protocols for LHWs, and increase minority representation to establish the effectiveness of LHWs for patients with RMDs.
Subject(s)
Community Health Workers , Rheumatology , Humans , Rheumatic Diseases/therapy , Female , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Mixed-methods research is valuable in health care to gain insights into patient perceptions. However, analyzing textual data from interviews can be time-consuming and require multiple analysts for investigator triangulation. This study aims to explore a novel approach to investigator triangulation in mixed-methods research by employing a large language model (LLM) for analyzing data from patient interviews. METHODS: This study compared the thematic analysis and survey generation performed by human investigators and ChatGPT-4, which uses GPT-4 as its backbone model, using data from an existing study that explored patient perceptions of barriers to arthroplasty. The human- and ChatGPT-4-generated themes and surveys were compared and evaluated based on their representation of salient themes from a predetermined topic guide. RESULTS: ChatGPT-4 generated analogous dominant themes and a comprehensive corresponding survey as the human investigators but in significantly less time. The survey questions generated by ChatGPT-4 were less precise than those developed by human investigators. The mixed-methods flowchart proposes integrating LLMs and human investigators as a supplementary tool for the preliminary thematic analysis of qualitative data and survey generation. CONCLUSION: By utilizing a combination of LLMs and human investigators through investigator triangulation, researchers may be able to conduct more efficient mixed-methods research to better understand patient perspectives. Ethical and qualitative implications of using LLMs should be considered.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Racial and ethnic disparities in arthroplasty utilization are evident, but the reasons are not known. We aimed to identify concerns that may contribute to barriers to arthroplasty from the patient's perspective. METHODS: We identified patients' concerns about arthroplasty by performing a mixed methods study. Themes identified during semi-structured interviews with Black and Hispanic patients with advanced symptomatic hip or knee arthritis were used to develop a questionnaire to quantify and prioritize their concerns. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the association between race/ethnicity and the importance of each theme. Models were adjusted for sex, insurance, education, HOOS, JR/KOOS, JR, and discussion of joint replacement with a doctor. RESULTS: Interviews with eight participants reached saturation and provided five themes used to develop a survey answered by 738 (24%) participants; 75.5% White, 10.3% Black, 8.7% Hispanic, 3.9% Asian/Other. Responses were significantly different between groups (p < 0.05). Themes identified were "Trust in the surgeon" "Recovery", "Cost/Insurance", "Surgical outcome", and "Personal suitability/timing". Compared to Whites, Blacks were two-fold, Hispanics four-fold more likely to rate "Trust in the surgeon" as very/extremely important. Blacks were almost three times and Hispanics over six times more likely to rate "Recovery" as very/extremely important. CONCLUSION: We identified factors of importance to patients that may contribute to barriers to arthroplasty, with marked differences between Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Ethnicity , Hispanic or Latino , United States , White , Black or African AmericanABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Frailty is a risk factor for adverse health in adults with SLE, including those <65 years. Emergency department (ED) utilisation is high in adults with SLE, but to our knowledge, whether frailty is associated with ED use is unknown. In a large administrative claims dataset, we assessed risk of ED utilisation among frail adults with SLE ≤65 years of age relative to non-frail adults ≤65 years of age with SLE. METHODS: Using the MarketScan Medicaid subset from 2011 to 2015, we identified beneficiaries 18-65 years with SLE (≥3 SLE International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes ≥30 days apart). Comparators without a systemic rheumatic disease (SRD) were matched 4:1 on age and gender. Frailty status in 2011 was determined using two claims-based frailty indices (CFIs). We compared risk of recurrent ED utilisation among frail and non-frail beneficiaries with SLE using an extension of the Cox proportional hazard model for recurrent events data. RESULTS: Of 2262 beneficiaries with SLE and 9048 non-SRD comparators, 28.8% and 11.6% were frail, respectively, according to both CFIs. Compared with non-frail beneficiaries with SLE, frail beneficiaries with SLE had significantly higher hazard of recurrent ED use (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.08). CONCLUSION: Frailty increased hazard of recurrent ED visits in frail adults ≤65 years of age with SLE relative to comparable non-frail adults with SLE. Frailty is a potential target for efforts to improve quality of care in SLE.
Subject(s)
Frailty , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic , United States/epidemiology , Adult , Humans , Aged , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/complications , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/epidemiology , Frailty/complications , Frailty/epidemiology , Medicaid , Emergency Service, Hospital , Data AnalysisABSTRACT
Background: Peer coaching interventions are effective in helping individuals with chronic conditions understand their disease. Most peer coach training programs occur in person, which has become an obstacle during the COVID pandemic. We describe our experiences with virtual training for future peer coach interventions. Methods: Individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) between 40 and 75 years of age were recruited and interviewed by the research team. We conducted seven virtual training sessions focused on four main points: Listen, Discuss, Practice, and Certify. The peer coaches provided feedback throughout the program, which was used to refine the training and intervention. A post-training focus group assessed satisfaction with the training program and intervention development process. Results: Four peer coaches (3 women, 1 man) were trained, including 2 Black and 2 White individuals with advanced degrees. Their ages ranged from 52 to 57, and their RA duration ranged from 5 to 15 years. An iterative process with the coaches and researchers resulted in a nine-week training program. Peer coaches reported satisfaction, confidence, and a preference for the virtual training format. Conclusion: This virtual peer coach training program was feasible and acceptable for coaches with advanced degrees during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Our approach represents an opportunity to adapt training that has been traditionally done in person. By doing so, our approach facilitates the recruitment and training of a diverse group of coaches and promotes sustainability.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To develop initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on the use of exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional interventions in conjunction with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as part of an integrative management approach for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An interprofessional guideline development group constructed clinically relevant Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) questions. A literature review team then completed a systematic literature review and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the certainty of evidence. An interprofessional Voting Panel (n = 20 participants) that included 3 individuals with RA achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The Voting Panel achieved consensus on 28 recommendations for the use of integrative interventions in conjunction with DMARDs for the management of RA. Consistent engagement in exercise received a strong recommendation. Of 27 conditional recommendations, 4 pertained to exercise, 13 to rehabilitation, 3 to diet, and 7 to additional integrative interventions. These recommendations are specific to RA management, recognizing that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides initial ACR recommendations on integrative interventions for the management of RA to accompany DMARD treatments. The broad range of interventions included in these recommendations illustrates the importance of an interprofessional, team-based approach to RA management. The conditional nature of most recommendations requires clinicians to engage persons with RA in shared decision-making when applying these recommendations.
Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents , Arthritis, Rheumatoid , Rheumatology , Humans , United States , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Diet , Exercise TherapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To develop initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on the use of exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional interventions in conjunction with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as part of an integrative management approach for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An interprofessional guideline development group constructed clinically relevant Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) questions. A literature review team then completed a systematic literature review and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the certainty of evidence. An interprofessional Voting Panel (n = 20 participants) that included 3 individuals with RA achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The Voting Panel achieved consensus on 28 recommendations for the use of integrative interventions in conjunction with DMARDs for the management of RA. Consistent engagement in exercise received a strong recommendation. Of 27 conditional recommendations, 4 pertained to exercise, 13 to rehabilitation, 3 to diet, and 7 to additional integrative interventions. These recommendations are specific to RA management, recognizing that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides initial ACR recommendations on integrative interventions for the management of RA to accompany DMARD treatments. The broad range of interventions included in these recommendations illustrates the importance of an interprofessional, team-based approach to RA management. The conditional nature of most recommendations requires clinicians to engage persons with RA in shared decision-making when applying these recommendations.
Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents , Arthritis, Rheumatoid , Rheumatology , Humans , United States , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/diagnosis , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Diet , Exercise TherapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Moving Well is a behavioral intervention for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) scheduled for a total knee replacement (TKR). The objective of this intervention is to help patients with KOA mentally and physically prepare for and recover from TKR. METHODS: This is an open-label pilot randomized clinical trial that will test the feasibility and effectiveness of the Moving Well intervention compared to an attention control group, Staying Well, to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with KOA undergoing TKR. The Moving Well intervention is guided by Social Cognitive Theory. During this 12-week intervention, participants will receive 7 weekly calls before surgery and 5 weekly calls after surgery from a peer coach. During these calls, participants will be coached to use principles of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), stress reduction techniques, and will be assigned an online exercise program, and self-monitoring activities to complete on their own time throughout the program. Staying Well participants will receive weekly calls of similar duration from research staff to discuss a variety of health topics unrelated to TKR, CBT, or exercise. The primary outcome is the difference in levels of anxiety and/or depression between participants in the Moving Well and Staying Well groups 6 months after TKR. DISCUSSION: This study will pilot test the feasibility and effectiveness of Moving Well, a peer coach intervention, alongside principles of CBT and home exercise, to help patients with KOA mentally and physically prepare for and recover from TKR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov. NCT05217420; Registered: January 31, 2022.
Subject(s)
Anxiety , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Depression , Humans , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/prevention & control , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/adverse effects , Depression/etiology , Depression/prevention & control , Exercise , Osteoarthritis, Knee/surgery , Osteoarthritis, Knee/diagnosis , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Glucocorticoids (GCs) ('steroids') are used to treat rheumatic diseases but adverse effects are common. We aimed to explore the impact of GC therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), to inform the development of a treatment-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for use in clinical trials and practice. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with patients from the UK, USA and Australia, treated for a rheumatic condition with GCs in the last 2 years. Purposive sampling was used to select participants with a range of demographic and disease features. An initial conceptual framework informed interview prompts and cues. Interviews elicited GC-related physical and psychological symptoms and salient aspects of HRQoL in relation to GC therapy. Interview data were analysed inductively to develop initial individual themes and domains. Candidate questionnaire items were developed and refined. RESULTS: Sixty semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted (UK n = 34, USA n = 10, Australia n = 16). The mean age was 58 years; 39/60 were female; and 18 rheumatic diseases were represented. Some 126 individual themes were identified and organized into six domains: physical symptoms; psychological symptoms; psychological impact of steroids; impact of steroids on participation; impact of steroids on relationships; and benefits of steroids. Candidate questionnaire items were tested and refined by piloting with patient research partners, iterative rounds of cognitive interviews and linguistic translatability assessment, informing a draft questionnaire. CONCLUSION: We describe an international qualitative study to develop candidate items for a treatment-specific PROM for patients with rheumatic diseases. A future survey will enable the validation of a final version of the PROM.
Subject(s)
Quality of Life , Rheumatic Diseases , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Male , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy , Rheumatic Diseases/chemically induced , Surveys and Questionnaires , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , SteroidsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Conflicting data exist regarding whether patients with systemic rheumatic disease (SRD) experience more severe outcomes related to COVID-19. Using data from adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York City during the first wave of the pandemic, we evaluated whether patients with SRD were at an increased risk for severe outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a medical records review study including patients aged ≥18 years with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection hospitalized at 3 NewYork-Presbyterian sites, March 3-May 15, 2020. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to a multivariable logistic regression model to assess the association between SRD status and the composite of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death. RESULTS: Of 3710 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [17.0] years; 41% female, 29% White, and 34% Hispanic/Latinx), 92 (2.5%) had SRD. Patients with SRD had similar age and body mass index but were more likely to be female, ever smokers, and White or Black, compared with those without SRD. A higher proportion of patients with versus without SRD had hypertension and pulmonary disease, and used hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive medications before admission. In the weighted multivariable analysis, patients with SRD had an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41; p < 0.01) for the composite of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death, compared with patients without SRD. CONCLUSIONS: During the initial peak of the pandemic in New York City, patients with versus without SRD hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 24% increased likelihood of having severe COVID-19 after multivariable adjustment.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Rheumatic Diseases , Adult , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Middle Aged , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics , New York City/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Rheumatic Diseases/epidemiology , Rheumatic Diseases/therapy , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of incident dementia associated with the use of biologics or targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARD) compared to conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDS only in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We analyzed claims data from the Center for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) from 2006-2017. Patients with RA were identified as adults ≥40 years old and two RA diagnoses by a rheumatologist > 7 and < 365 days apart. Patients with a prior diagnosis of dementia were excluded. Use of cs/b/tsDMARDs was the exposure of interest. Person-time was classified as either: 1) b/tsDMARD exposed, which included tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi)-bDMARDs, non-TNFi-bDMARDs or tsDMARDs with or without csDMARDs; 2) csDMARD-exposed: any csDMARD without b/tsDMARD. Patients could contribute time to different exposure groups if they changed medications. Incident dementia was defined as: 1 inpatient OR 2 outpatients ICD-9-CM or ICD-10 claims for dementia, OR prescription of a dementia-specific medication (rivastigmine, galantamine, memantine, donepezil, tacrine). Age-adjusted incident rates (IR) were calculated, and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate Hazard Ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We identified 141,326 eligible RA patients; 80% female and 75.3% white, median age 67 years and mean (SD) exposure time of 1.1 (1.5) years. There were 233,271 initiations of c/b/tsDMARDS and 3,794 cases of incident dementia during follow up. The crude IR of dementia was 2.0 (95% CI 1.9-2.1) per 100 person-years for patients on csDMARDs and 1.3 (95% CI 1.2-1.4) for patients on any b/tsDMARD. Patients on b/tsDMARDs had an adjusted 19% lower risk for dementia than patients on csDMARDs [HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.87)]. Subgroup analysis found comparable risk reductions between TNFi, non-TNFi, and tsDMARDs. on the risk of dementia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The incidence of dementia in patients with RA was lower in patients receiving b/tsDMARDs when compared to patients on csDMARD only. No differences were observed between different classes of b/tsDMARDs, suggesting that decreased risk is possibly explained by the overall decrease in inflammation rather than a specific mechanism of action of these drugs.
Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents , Arthritis, Rheumatoid , Biological Products , Dementia , Aged , Adult , Humans , Female , United States/epidemiology , Male , Incidence , Medicare , Antirheumatic Agents/adverse effects , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/epidemiology , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/complications , Biological Products/adverse effects , Dementia/epidemiologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare cardiovascular disease (CVD) rates in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) beneficiaries of the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) with commercially insured RA patients. METHOD: We created three cohorts of RA patients aged < 65 years for SSDI and three for Marketscan using claims data from 2006 to 2016. The cohort definitions were as follows: (1) cohort 1: ≥ 2 diagnosis codes for RA occurring 7-365 days apart with ≥ 1 diagnosis code from a rheumatologist; (2) cohort 2: ≥ 1 diagnosis code for RA from a rheumatologist and a disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS); and (3) cohort 3: cohort 2, plus initiation of a new biologic/tofacitinib. We used Cox regression to determine the CVD risk comparing SSDI vs. Marketscan. Models were sequentially adjusted for age and sex (model 1); model 1 + diabetes, smoking, and high CVD risk (model 2); and model 2 + dual eligible (Medicare and Medicaid), subsidy, and state buy in (model 3). RESULTS: There were 380,336 RA patients, mean age 53.3 (SD 8.1) years, 21-24% male. Prevalence of comorbidities was higher in SSDI vs. Marketscan. SSDI RA patients in cohort 2 (model 3) had higher CVD risk (HR 1.23 (1.14-1.33). In cohort 3 (model 3), CVD risk was not statistically significantly different between SSDI and Marketscan (HR 0.89 (0.69-1.15). CONCLUSION: RA patient beneficiaries of the SSDI had higher risk for CVD events than those employed. The differences in CVD events between SSDI and Marketscan were partially attributable to differences in CVD risk factors.
Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents , Arthritis, Rheumatoid , Biological Products , Cardiovascular Diseases , Insurance, Disability , Aged , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/complications , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/epidemiology , Biological Products/therapeutic use , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/drug therapy , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Female , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Humans , Male , Medicare , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Social Security , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of death among people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with an estimated increased risk of 50-60% compared to the general population. Lipid-lowering strategies have been shown to lower CVD risk significantly in people with RA and hyperlipidemia. Thus, CVD risk assessment has an important role to play in reducing CVD among people with RA. Yet currently only 37 to 45% of this population are receiving primary lipids screening. This paper describes the CArdiovascular Risk assEssment for RA (CARE RA) intervention, which is designed to address this issue. CARE RA is a peer coach intervention, that is, an intervention in which a person with RA coaches another person with RA, which is designed to educate people with RA about the relation between RA and CVD risk and to help them obtain evidence-based CVD risk assessment and treatment. METHODS: This is an open-label pilot study that will test if the participants assigned to complete the CARE RA curriculum with a peer coach will receive a cardiovascular risk assessment more frequently compared to those that complete the CARE RA curriculum by themselves. The CARE RA intervention is guided by Social Cognitive Theory. Participants in the peer coach intervention arm will receive the assistance of a peer coach who will call the participants once a week for 5 weeks to go over the CARE RA curriculum and train them on how to obtain CVD risk assessment. The control arm will complete the CARE RA curriculum without any assistance. Participants will be randomized 1:1 either to the control arm or to the peer coach intervention arm. The primary outcome is a participant's having a CVD risk assessment or initiating a statin, if indicated. Secondary outcomes include patient activation and RA medication adherence. The RE-AIM implementation framework guides the implementation and evaluation of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This pilot study will test the feasibility of the peer coach intervention in anticipation of a larger trial. CARE RA pioneers the use of peer coaches to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based treatment guidelines among people with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04488497 . Registered on July 28, 2020.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Frailty is associated with disability and mortality independent of age. Although studies have evaluated frailty in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), information on the prevalence of frailty in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is limited. We aimed to determine the prevalence of frailty in AS and PsA and to evaluate whether characteristics known to be associated with frailty, including anxiety, differ among these three types of inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: We performed a cross sectional study of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with AS, PsA, or RA enrolled in 2014. We operationalized frailty using a validated claims-based frailty index. We also explored the prevalence of frailty among CMS beneficiaries younger than age 65 years with work disability, a younger population that also may be at risk of frailty. RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty in beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with AS and PsA was 45.2% and 46.7%, respectively, significantly lower than in RA (65.9%, P < 0.05). The prevalence of frailty in beneficiaries less than 65 years old was much lower overall, though still highest in RA; 11.7%, 4.4%, and 7.0% in RA, AS, and PsA, respectively (P < 0.05). Anxiety was significantly associated with frailty in subjects of all ages, particularly among those less than 65 years old (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Almost half of beneficiaries with AS or PsA aged 65 years old or older were frail, higher than in younger disabled beneficiaries. Further studies are needed to understand the risks of developing frailty in these diseases. Frailty was associated with anxiety, particularly in the younger age groups.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians (PCPs) are often gatekeepers to specialist care. This study assessed the relationship between PCP density and total knee (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) outcomes. METHODS: We obtained patient-level data from an institutional registry on patients undergoing elective primary TKA and THA for osteoarthritis, including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and function scores at baseline and 2 years. Using geocoding, we identified the number of PCPs in the patient's census tract (communities). We used Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting and Cross-validated Targeted Minimum Loss-Based Estimation to compare provider density and outcomes adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Our sample included 3606 TKA and 4295 THA cases. The median number of PCPs in each community was similar for both procedures: TKA 2 (interquartile range 1, 6) and for THA 2 (interquartile range 1, 7). Baseline and 2-year follow-up WOMAC pain, function, and stiffness scores were not statistically significantly different comparing communities with more than median number of PCPs to those with less than median number of PCPs. In sensitivity analyses, adding 1 PCP to a community with zero PCPs would not have statistically significantly improved baseline or 2-year follow-up WOMAC pain, function, and stiffness scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of patients who underwent elective TKA or THA for osteoarthritis, we found no statistically significant association between PCP density and pain, function, or stiffness outcomes at baseline or 2 years. Further studies should examine what other provider factors affect access and outcomes in THA and TKA.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Given the role of inflammation in severe forms of COVID-19, glucocorticoids and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been assessed as potential COVID-19 therapies. RECENT FINDINGS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that glucocorticoids reduce mortality in severe COVID-19. RCTs of DMARDs have shown mixed results varying on intervention and inclusion criteria. DMARDs, including colchicine or biologic agents, may improve COVID-19 outcomes in specific patient populations. SUMMARY: Glucocorticoids are an effective treatment for the management of severe COVID-19. Further studies are needed to better define the patient populations who could benefit from DMARD use, as well as provide guidance regarding the timing of these interventions.
Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents , Arthritis, Rheumatoid , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Biological Factors/therapeutic use , Humans , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.
Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/physiopathology , Biological Products/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination , Humans , Janus Kinase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Rheumatology , Severity of Illness Index , Societies, Medical , Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors/therapeutic use , United StatesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.
Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Rheumatology/trends , Antirheumatic Agents/adverse effects , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/diagnosis , Clinical Decision-Making , Consensus , Decision Support Techniques , Humans , Remission Induction , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review highlights the available data describing racial and ethnic health disparities among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States from an epidemiological, disease activity, and wider socioeconomic standpoint. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite centralized government initiatives to include more underrepresentative minority populations into research, many of the studies that examined rheumatoid arthritis still fail to include sizeable cohorts of races or ethnic groups other than whites. Evidence is slowly mounting that individual, provider, and system-level barriers exist and contribute to unequal care that leads to poorer outcomes amongst patients with rheumatoid arthritis. As rheumatoid arthritis is a progressive disease, early treatment is crucial to delay functional decline - a narrow window for many minority patients who are disproportionality affected by disability. SUMMARY: To combat the inequality that exists amongst rheumatoid arthritis patients we must focus on why discrepancies exist on every level, system, physician, patient, and illness. Further research is needed to tease the complex interplay between race, social economic status, medical access, and outcomes to explain the disparities found in rheumatoid arthritis.
Subject(s)
Arthritis, Rheumatoid , Ethnicity , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/epidemiology , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/therapy , Health Status Disparities , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Minority Groups , Socioeconomic Factors , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) 65 years and older, and compare the incidence of dementia in patients with RA with prevalent cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD), CV risk factors but no prevalent CVD and neither (referent group). METHODS: We analyzed claims data from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from 2006-2014. Eligibility criteria included continuous medical and pharmacy coverage for ≥ 12 months (baseline period 2006), > 2 RA diagnoses by a rheumatologist and at least 1 medication for RA. CVD and CV risk factors were identified using codes from the Chronic Condition Data Warehouse. Incident dementia was defined by 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient claims, or one dementia specific medication. Age-adjusted incident rates were calculated within each age strata. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate Hazard Ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Among 56,567 patients with RA, 11,789 (20.1%) incident cases of dementia were included in the main analysis. Age adjusted incident rates were high among all groups and increased with age. After adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities and baseline CV and RA medications, patients with CVD and CV risk factors between 65 and 74 years had an increased risk for incident dementia compared to those without CVD and without CV risk factors (HR 1.18 (95% CI 1.04-1.33) and HR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00-1.11), respectively). We observed a trend towards increased risk in patients between 75 and 84 years with CVD at baseline. CONCLUSION: Patients with RA with both CVD and CV risk factors alone are at an increased risk for dementia compared to those with neither CVD nor CV risk factors; however, this risk is attenuated with increasing age. The impact of RA treatment and CV primary prevention strategies in the prevention of dementia in patients with RA warrants further studies.