Disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of cardiovascular events.

OBJECTIVE: Use of several immunomodulatory agents has been associated with reduced numbers of cardiovascular (CV) events in epidemiologic studies of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is unknown whether time-averaged disease activity in RA correlates with CV events. METHODS: We studied patients with RA whose cases were followed in a longitudinal US-based registry. Time-averaged disease activity was assessed during followup using the area under the curve of the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), a validated measure of RA disease activity. Age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, body mass index, family history of myocardial infarction (MI), use of aspirin or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), presence of CV disease, and baseline use of an immunomodulator were assessed at baseline. Cox proportional hazards regression models were examined to determine the risk of a composite CV end point that included MI, stroke, and death from CV causes. RESULTS: A total of 24,989 patients who had been followed up for a median of 2.7 years were included in these analyses. During followup, we observed 534 confirmed CV end points, for an incidence rate of 7.8 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 6.7-8.9). In models adjusted for variables noted above, a 10-point reduction in the time-averaged CDAI was associated with a 21% reduction in CV risk (95% CI 13-29). These results were robust in subgroup analyses stratified by the presence of CV disease, use of corticosteroids, use of NSAIDs or selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors, and change in RA treatment, as well as when restricted to events adjudicated as definite or probable. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that reduced time-averaged disease activity in RA is associated with fewer CV events.

Sex differences in gout epidemiology: evaluation and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the characteristics, evaluation and treatment of women with gout. OBJECTIVE: To examine the epidemiological differences and differences in treatment between men and women in a large patient population. METHODS: The data from approximately 1.4 million people who were members of seven managed care plans in the USA for at least 1 year between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2003 were examined. Adult members who had pharmacy benefits and at least two ambulatory claims specifying a diagnosis of gout were identified. In addition, men and women who were new users of urate-lowering drugs (ULDs) were identified to assess adherence with recommended surveillance of serum urate levels within 6 months of initiating urate-lowering treatment. RESULTS: A total of 6133 people (4975 men and 1158 women) with two or more International Classification of Disease-9 codes for gout were identified. As compared with men with gout, women were older (mean age 70 (SD 13) v 58 (SD 14), p<0.001) and had comorbidities and received diuretics more often (77% v 40%; p<0.001). Only 37% of new users of urate-lowering treatment had appropriate surveillance of serum urate levels post-initiation of urate-lowering treatment. After controlling for age, comorbidities, gout treatments, number of ULD dispensings and health plan, women were more likely (odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.67) to receive the recommended serum urate level testing. CONCLUSIONS: Women with gout were older, had greater comorbidities and more often used diuretics and received appropriate surveillance of serum urate levels, suggesting that the factors leading to gout as well as monitoring of treatment are very different in women and men.

Prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: experience in a managed care setting.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with glucocorticoids is the leading cause of drug-induced osteoporosis. Currently available guidelines indicate that patients receiving long-term glucocorticoid therapy should receive measures to prevent osteoporosis. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether patients receiving long-term glucocorticoid therapy in a managed care setting received preventive therapy or prescribed medications for osteoporosis and to identify patient and provider characteristics associated with treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A cohort of 224 health plan enrollees 20 years and older who were dispensed at least 1 oral glucocorticoid prescription per quarter during the period October 1997 through September 1998 was identified from administrative data. Medical charts and administrative data were reviewed to determine use of preventive therapy and prescribed medications for osteoporosis. RESULTS: Of the 224 patients, 62% had at least 1 documented intervention aimed at osteoporosis prevention (counseling about calcium or vitamin D or weight-bearing exercise; prescription for estrogen, calcitonin, or bisphosphonate; or a bone mineral density study). Women were more likely than men to receive intervention (76% vs 44%; prevalence odds ratio, 4.41; 95% confidence interval, 2.17-9.10). Patients receiving a mean daily prednisone dose of 10 mg or more or 5 to less than 10 mg were no more likely to receive intervention than those receiving 5 mg or less prednisone daily. Sixty-two (90%) of 69 patients who were prescribed glucocorticoid therapy by rheumatologists had at least 1 intervention documented compared with 29 (48%) of 60 for internists, 26 (55%) of 47 for pulmonologists, and 22 (46%) of 48 for all other physicians. In a multiple logistic regression model, including patient age, sex, mean daily glucocorticoid dose, and physician specialty, women and patients prescribed glucocorticoids by a rheumatologist were significantly more likely to receive intervention aimed at osteoporosis prevention. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients receiving long-term glucocorticoid therapy do not receive preventive therapy for osteoporosis. Efforts should be made to reduce barriers to such treatment and increase the proportion of patients given preventive therapy.

The diffusion of a novel therapy into clinical practice: the case of sildenafil.

BACKGROUND: Erectile dysfunction is a common condition, yet in the past most affected men did not seek medical treatment. OBJECTIVE: To examine how sildenafil (Viagra), a new medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, has been incorporated into general medical practice. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of all male members of a group-model Massachusetts health maintenance organization (HMO) whose first prescription for sildenafil was dispensed during the first 24 weeks of its availability through the HMO as a plan benefit (April 24, 1998, through October 8, 1998). Data collected on each member in the study population included age, specialty of the prescribing physician, initial dose, use of prior treatments for erectile dysfunction, receipt of medications known to predispose to impotence, filling of a second prescription for sildenafil, and concomitant medical conditions (including hypertension, ischemic heart disease, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and history of radical prostatectomy). Cross tabulations and logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the potential associations between filling a second prescription for sildenafil and other characteristics of sildenafil users. RESULTS: We identified 899 members who filled a first-time sildenafil prescription in the 24-week period of interest. The majority of sildenafil prescriptions that were filled for the first time (85%) occurred in the first 12 weeks of its availability. Most sildenafil users (84%) were between 45 and 74 years of age (average age, 61 years; age range, 23 to 90 years), and approximately 40% had documentation of prior treatment for erectile dysfunction. Use was highest among those aged 55 to 64 years, with almost 5% of all male HMO members in that age group having received at least 1 sildenafil prescription. Our cohort of sildenafil users was significantly more likely to have hypertension (P<.01), hyperlipidemia (P<.01), and diabetes mellitus (P<.01) than persons who participated in a widely publicized clinical trial of the medication. Prescribing physicians were predominantly primary care physicians (78% were internists, and 11% were family practitioners). More than 60% of sildenafil users filled a second prescription within 3 months of the first prescription; in multivariate analyses, factors associated with filling a second prescription included younger age and prior treatment for erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Sildenafil was rapidly adopted into the clinical practice of primary care physicians for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in the managed care setting. The patients for whom the drug was prescribed in the general practice setting differed across many medical characteristics from study subjects who participated in clinical trials of the drug. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3401-3405.

Evaluating the predictive value of osteoarthritis diagnoses in an administrative database.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the positive and negative predictive values of osteoarthritis (OA) diagnoses contained in an administrative database. METHODS: We identified all members (> or =18 years of age) of a Massachusetts health maintenance organization with documentation of at least one health care encounter associated with an OA diagnosis during the period 1994-1996. From this population, we randomly selected 350 subjects. In addition, we randomly selected 250 enrollees (proportionally by the age and sex of the 350 subjects) who did not have a health care encounter associated with an OA diagnosis. Trained nurse reviewers abstracted OA-related clinical, laboratory, and radiologic data from the medical records of both study groups (all but 1 chart was available for review). Pairs of physician reviewers evaluated the abstracted information for both groups of subjects and rated the evidence for the presence of OA according to 3 levels: definite, possible, and unlikely. RESULTS: Among the group of patients with an administrative diagnosis of OA, 215 (62%) were rated as having definite OA, 36 (10%) possible OA, and 98 (28%) unlikely OA, according to information contained in the medical record. The positive predictive value of an OA diagnosis was 62%. In those without an administrative OA diagnosis, 44 (18%) were assigned a rating of definite OA. The negative predictive value of the absence of an administrative OA diagnosis was 78%. CONCLUSION: Use of administrative data in epidemiologic and health services research on OA may lead to both case misclassification and under ascertainment.

Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists.

OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the differences between generalist physicians and specialists in terms of knowledge, patterns of care, and clinical outcomes of care. METHODS: English-language articles (January 1981 to January 1998) were identified through a Medline search and examination of bibliographies of identified articles. Systematic evaluation of articles relevant to adult medicine that had a direct comparison between generalist physicians and specialists in terms of knowledge relative to widely accepted standards of care, patterns of care (including use of medications, ancillary services, procedures, and resource utilization), and outcomes of care was performed. MAIN RESULTS: In many survey studies, specialists were reported to be more knowledgeable about conditions encompassed within their specialty. In terms of overall practice patterns, specialists practicing in their area of expertise were more likely to use medications associated with improved survival and to comply with routine health maintenance screening guidelines; they used more resources including diagnostic tests, procedures, and longer hospital stays. In the limited number of studies examining the care of patients with acute myocardial infarction, acute nonhemorrhagic stroke, and asthma, specialists had superior outcomes compared with generalists. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence in the literature suggesting differences between specialists and generalists in terms of knowledge, patterns of care, and clinical outcomes of care for a broad range of diseases. In published studies, specialists were generally more knowledgeable about their area of expertise and quicker to adopt new and effective treatments than generalists. More research is needed to examine whether these patterns of care translate into superior outcomes for patients. Further work is also needed to delineate the components of care for which generalists and specialists should be responsible, in order to provide the highest quality of care to patients while most effectively utilizing existing physician manpower.