Changes in the Workforce Characteristics of Providers Who Care for Adult Patients With Rheumatologic and Musculoskeletal Disease in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the adult rheumatology workforce in the United States, assess change in rheumatology providers over time, and identify variation in rheumatology practice characteristics. METHODS: Using national Medicare claims data from 2006 to 2020, clinically active rheumatology physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) were identified. Each calendar year was used for inclusion, exclusion, and analysis, and providers were determined to be entering, exiting, or stable based upon presence or absence in the prior or subsequent years of data. Characteristics (age, gender, practice type, rural, and region) of rheumatologists were determined for 2019 and in mutually exclusive study periods from 2009 to 2011, 2012 to 2015, and 2016 to 2019. The location of rheumatology practice was determined by billing tax identification and mapped. Demographics of physicians exiting or entering the rheumatology workforce were compared separately to those stable by logistic regression. RESULTS: The clinically active adult rheumatology workforce identified in US Medicare in 2019 was 5,667 rheumatologists and 379 APPs. From 2009 to 2020, the number of rheumatologists increased 23% and the number of APPs increased 141%. There was an increase in female rheumatologists over time, rising to 43% in 2019. Women and those employed by a health care system were more likely to exit, and those in a small practice or in the South were less likely to exit. CONCLUSION: The overall number of clinically active rheumatology providers grew more than 20% over the last decade to a high of 6,036 in 2020, although this rate of growth appears to be flattening off in later years.

Telemedicine use by pediatric rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To characterize various aspects of telemedicine use by pediatric rheumatology providers during the recent pandemic including provider acceptability of telehealth practices, clinical reliability, and clinical appropriateness. METHODS: An electronic survey was generated and disseminated amongst the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) listserv (n = 547). Survey items were analyzed via descriptive statistics by question. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 40.8% (n = 223) with the majority of respondents in an attending-level role. We observed that musculoskeletal components of the exam were rated as the most reliable components of a telemedicine exam and 86.5% of survey respondents reported engaging the patient or patient caregiver to help conduct the virtual exam. However, 65.7% of providers reported not being able to elicit the information needed from a telemedicine visit to make a complete clinical assessment. We also noted areas of disagreement regarding areas of patient engagement and confidentiality. We found that approximately one-third (35.8%) of those surveyed felt that their level of burnout was increased due to telemedicine. CONCLUSION: In general, providers found exam reliability (specifically around focused musculoskeletal elements) in telemedicine visits but overall felt that they were unable to generate the information needed to generate a complete clinical assessment. Additionally, there were suggestions that patient engagement and confidentiality varied during telemedicine visits when compared to in-person clinical visits. Further qualitative work is needed to fully explore telemedicine use in pediatric rheumatology.

Rheumatic diseases in Africa.

Historically, rheumatic diseases have not received much attention in Africa, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, possibly owing to a focus on the overwhelming incidence of infectious diseases and the decreased life span of the general population in this region. Global attention and support, together with better health policies and planning, have improved outcomes for many infectious diseases; thus, increasing attention is being turned to chronic non-communicable diseases. Rheumatic diseases were previously considered to be rare among Africans but there is now a growing interest in these conditions, particularly as the number of rheumatologists on the continent increases. This interest has resulted in a growing number of publications from Africa on the more commonly encountered rheumatic diseases, as well as case reports of rare diseases. Despite the limited amount of available data, some aspects of the epidemiology, genetics and clinical and laboratory features of rheumatic diseases in African populations are known, as is some detail on the use of therapeutics. Similarities and differences in these conditions can be seen across the multi-ethnic and genetically diverse African continent, and it is hoped that increased awareness of rheumatic diseases in Africa will lead to earlier diagnosis and better outcomes for patients.

Medicare beneficiary panel characteristics associated with high Part D biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug prescribing for older adults among rheumatologists.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to investigate beneficiary panel characteristics associated with rheumatologists' prescribing of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) for older adults.In this retrospective observational study, we used Medicare Public Use Files (PUFs) to identify rheumatologists who met criteria for high-prescribing, defined as bDMARD prescription constituting ≥20% of their DMARD claims for beneficiaries ≥65 years of age. We first used descriptive analysis then multivariable regression model to test the association of high prescribing of bDMARDs with rheumatologists' panel size and beneficiary characteristics. In particular, we quantified the proportion of panel beneficiaries ≥75 years of age to assess how caring for an older panel correlate with prescribing of bDMARDs.We identified 3197 unique rheumatologists, of whom 405 (13%) met criteria for high prescribing of bDMARDs for Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age. The high-prescribers provided care to 12% of study older adults, and yet accounted for 21% of bDMARD prescriptions for them. High prescribing of bDMARDs was associated with smaller panel size, and their beneficiaries were more likely to be non-black, ≥75 years of age, non-dual eligible, have diagnosis of CHF, however, less likely to have CKD.Rheumatologists differ in their prescribing of bDMARDs for older adults, and those caring for more beneficiaries ≥75 years of age are more likely to be high-prescribers. Older adults are more prone to the side-effects of bDMARDs and further investigation is warranted to understand drivers of differential prescribing behaviors to optimize use of these high-risk and high-cost medications.

Acceptance of Telerheumatology by Rheumatologists and General Practitioners in Germany: Nationwide Cross-sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The worldwide burden of musculoskeletal diseases is increasing. The number of newly registered rheumatologists has stagnated. Primary care, which takes up a key role in early detection of rheumatic disease, is working at full capacity. COVID-19 and its containment impede rheumatological treatment. Telemedicine in rheumatology (telerheumatology) could support rheumatologists and general practitioners. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate acceptance and preferences related to the use of telerheumatology care among German rheumatologists and general practitioners. METHODS: A nationwide, cross-sectional, self-completed, paper-based survey on telerheumatology care was conducted among outpatient rheumatologists and general practitioners during the pre-COVID-19 period. RESULTS: A total of 73.3% (349/476) of survey participants rated their knowledge of telemedicine as unsatisfactory, poor, or very poor. The majority of survey participants (358/480, 74.6%) answered that they do not currently use telemedicine, although 62.3% (291/467) would like to. Barriers to the implementation of telemedicine include the purchase of technology equipment (182/292, 62.3%), administration (181/292, 62.0%), and poor reimbursement (156/292, 53.4%). A total of 69.6% (117/168) of the surveyed physicians reckoned that telemedicine could be used in rheumatology. Surveyed physicians would prefer to use telemedicine to communicate directly with other physicians (370/455, 81.3%) than to communicate with patients (213/455, 46.8%). Among treatment phases, 64.4% (291/452) of participants would choose to use telemedicine during follow-up. Half of the participants would choose telecounseling as a specific approach to improve rheumatology care (91/170, 53.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Before COVID-19 appeared, our results indicated generally low use but high acceptance of the implementation of telerheumatology among physicians. Participants indicated that the lack of a structural framework was a barrier to the effective implementation of telerheumatology. Training courses should be introduced to address the limited knowledge on the part of physicians in the use of telemedicine. More research into telerheumatology is required. This includes large-scale randomized controlled trials, economic analyses, and the exploration of user preferences.

Digital rheumatology in the era of COVID-19: results of a national patient and physician survey.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatic patients' and rheumatologists' usage, preferences and perception of digital health applications (DHAs). METHODS: A web-based national survey was developed by the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology and the German League against Rheumatism. The prospective survey was distributed via social media (Twitter, Instagram and Facebook), QR code and email. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and regression analyses were performed to show correlations. RESULTS: We analysed the responses of 299 patients and 129 rheumatologists. Most patients (74%) and rheumatologists (76%) believed that DHAs are useful in the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and felt confident in their own usage thereof (90%; 86%). 38% of patients and 71% of rheumatologists reported that their attitude had changed positively towards DHAs and that their usage had increased due to COVID-19 (29%; 48%). The majority in both groups agreed on implementing virtual visits for follow-up appointments in stable disease conditions. The most reported advantages of DHAs were usage independent of time and place (76.6%; 77.5%). The main barriers were a lack of information on suitable, available DHAs (58.5%; 41.9%), poor usability (42.1% of patients) and a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of DHAs (23.2% of rheumatologists). Only a minority (<10% in both groups) believed that digitalisation has a negative impact on the patient-doctor relationship. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic instigated an increase in patients' and rheumatologists' acceptance and usage of DHAs, possibly introducing a permanent paradigm shift in the management of RMDs.

The Association Between Physician Gender and Career Advancement Among Academic Rheumatologists in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential association between physician gender and academic advancement among US rheumatologists. METHODS: We performed a nationwide, cross-sectional study of all rheumatologists practicing in the US in 2014 using a comprehensive database of all licensed physicians. Among academic rheumatologists, we estimated gender differences in faculty rank, adjusting for differences in physician age, years since residency graduation, publications, National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, registered clinical trials, and appointment at a top 20 medical school using a multivariate logistic regression model. We also estimated gender differences in leadership positions (i.e., division director and fellowship program director). RESULTS: Among 6,125 total practicing rheumatologists, 941 (15%) had academic faculty appointments in 2014. Women academic rheumatologists (41.4%) were younger and had completed residency more recently than men. Women had fewer total publications, publications on which they were the first or last author, and NIH grants. In fully adjusted analyses, women were less likely to be full or associate professors than men, with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.62-0.99]). Women in rheumatology had similar odds as men of being a fellowship program director or division director (adjusted OR 0.99 [95% CI 0.69-1.43] and adjusted OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.66-1.41], respectively). CONCLUSION: Among academic rheumatologists, women are less likely than men to be full or associate professors but have similar odds of being fellowship program directors or division directors, when adjusting for several factors known to influence faculty promotion. These differences suggest barriers to academic promotion despite representation in leadership positions within rheumatology divisions.

Immunogenicity of biologic agents in rheumatology.

Biologic agents have become a core component of therapeutic strategies for many inflammatory rheumatic diseases. However, perhaps reflecting the specificity and generally high affinity of biologic agents, these therapeutics have been used by rheumatologists with less consideration of their pharmacokinetics than that of conventional synthetic DMARDs. Immunogenicity was recognized as a potential limitation to the use of biologic agents at an early stage in their development, although regulatory guidance was relatively limited and assays to measure immunogenicity were less sophisticated than today. The advent of biosimilars has sparked a renewed interest in immunogenicity that has resulted in the development of increasingly sensitive assays, an enhanced appreciation of the pharmacokinetic consequences of immunogenicity and the development of comprehensive and specific guidance from regulatory authorities. As a result, rheumatologists have a greatly improved understanding of the field in general, including the factors responsible for immunogenicity, its potential clinical consequences and the implications for everyday treatment. In some specialties, immunogenicity testing is becoming a part of routine clinical management, but definitive evidence of its cost-effectiveness in rheumatology is awaited.

Effectiveness of initial methotrexate-based treatment approaches in early rheumatoid arthritis: an elicitation of rheumatologists' beliefs.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify rheumatologists' beliefs about the effectiveness of triple therapy (MTX + HCQ + SSZ) and other commonly used initial treatments for RA. METHODS: In a Bayesian belief elicitation exercise, 40 rheumatologists distributed 20 chips, each representing 5% of their total weight of belief on the probability that a typical patient with moderate-severe early RA would have an ACR50 response within 6 months with MTX (oral and s.c.), MTX + HCQ (dual therapy) and triple therapy. Parametric distributions were fit, and used to calculate pairwise median relative risks (RR), with 95% credible intervals, and estimate sample sizes for new trials to shift these beliefs. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis, triple therapy was perceived to be superior to MTX (RR 1.97; 1.35, 2.89) and dual therapy (RR 1.32; 1.03, 1.73). A pessimistic subgroup (n = 10) perceived all treatments to be similar, whereas an optimistic subgroup (n = 10) believed triple therapy to be most effective of all (RR 4.03; 2.22, 10.12). Similar variability was seen for the comparison between oral and s.c. MTX. Assuming triple therapy is truly more effective than MTX, a trial of 100 patients would be required to convince the pessimists; if triple therapy truly has no-modest effect (RR <1.5), a non-inferiority trial of 475 patients would be required to convince the optimists. CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists' beliefs regarding the effectiveness of triple therapy vary, which may partially explain the variability in its use. Owing to the strength of beliefs, some may be reluctant to shift, even with new evidence.

Incidence of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease: is prior health education more important than shielding advice during the pandemic?

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to major changes in clinical practice on a global scale in order to protect patients. This includes the identification of vulnerable patients who should "shield" in order to reduce the likelihood of contracting SARS-CoV2. We used national specialty guidance and an adapted screening tool to risk stratify patients identified from our prescribing and monitoring databases, and identify those needing to shield (score ≥ 3) using information from departmental letters, online general practice records and recent laboratory investigations. We collated underlying rheumatological conditions and risk factors. Two months into the shielding process, we examined the COVID-19 status of these patients using hospital laboratory records and compared to population level data. Of 887 patients assessed, 248 (28%) scored ≥ 3 and were sent a standard shielding letter. The most common risk factor in the shielding letter group was age ≥ 70 years and/or presence of a listed co-morbidity (199 patients). The most common rheumatology conditions were rheumatoid arthritis (69.4%), polymyalgia rheumatica (8.5%) and giant cell arteritis (8.5%). Coronavirus incidence rates were similar in the shielding letter group (0.403%) and in the UK population (0.397%). However, we found a trend towards lower incidence (0.113%) in our whole cohort (RR 0.28, 95%CI 0.04-2.01 for the whole cohort compared to UK population). The trend towards lower incidence in this cohort could be because of prior education regarding general infection risk and response to public health messages. While risk stratification and shielding could be effective, prior education regarding general infection risk and public health messages to enhance health protection behaviours during a pandemic may have equal or more important roles. Key Points • Patients on treatment for rheumatic disorders showed a trend for lower incidence of COVID-19 transmission irrespective of shielding letter status • This could potentially be because of prior education regarding infection risk received when starting on disease-modifying medication • Health education influencing health protection behaviours may be of equal or more importance than shielding information in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

US rheumatologists' beliefs and knowledge about biosimilars: a survey.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate perceptions of biosimilar products among US rheumatologists who prescribe TNF-α inhibitors, given that 10 TNF-α inhibitor biosimilars and two rituximab biosimilars have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. METHODS: A 19-question self-administered online survey was conducted from 6 May to 1 June 2019, and fielded by WebMD, LLC. Rheumatologists (n = 9050) who were members of Medscape.com and its partner panels were invited to participate. Likert and other rating scales were used to collect responses, which were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 320 board-certified US rheumatologists, 85% of whom were fellows of the ACR. Nearly all respondents were familiar with the FDA definition of a biosimilar product and were aware that an infliximab biosimilar was FDA approved; fewer realized that adalimumab, etanercept and rituximab biosimilars were also FDA approved. Most respondents (84%) were aware that an approved biosimilar was not automatically deemed interchangeable by the FDA. Rheumatologists were more likely to initiate biosimilar treatment for a biologic treatment-naïve patient with RA (73%) than they were to switch to the biosimilar for a patient with RA doing well on the reference product (35%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey suggest that US rheumatologists have a good understanding and acceptance of biosimilar products, particularly for the initiation of treatment in biologic-naïve individuals. They were hesitant to switch from a reference product to a biosimilar for a patient doing well on the reference product. Additional education on biosimilars is required to help inform treatment decisions by rheumatologists. A plain language summary of this article has been uploaded as supplementary material, available at Rheumatology online.

Are Systemic Corticosteroids Causing Psoriasis Flare-Ups? Questionnaire for Danish Dermatologists, Gastroenterologists and Rheumatologists.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis flare-ups and the change of morphology from nonpustular to pustular psoriasis following tapering and withdrawal of systemic corticosteroids have been reported. Despite these risks, systemic corticosteroids are still widely prescribed for patients with psoriasis, but the knowledge about psoriasis flare-ups and whether the physicians take precautions during these treatments is limited. METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire study among all dermatologists, gastroenterologists and rheumatologists in Denmark who work at a hospital or in a private practice to investigate the use, opinion and experience with oral, intramuscular and intra-articular corticosteroids in the treatment of patients with psoriasis. RESULTS: We received answers from a total of 248 physicians. Compared with oral and intramuscular corticosteroids, intra-articular corticosteroids were the most reported treatment in patients with psoriasis and only used by the rheumatologists. It was mainly the dermatologists and rheumatologists who had observed psoriasis flare-ups following treatment with oral, intramuscular and intra-articular corticosteroids. Half of the dermatologists (50%) and a fourth of the rheumatologists (29%) had observed at least one psoriasis flare-up following treatment with oral corticosteroids. About 10% of both the dermatologists and the rheumatologists had observed at least one psoriasis flare-up following treatment with intramuscular and/or intra-articular corticosteroids. Overall, 44% of the respondents took precautions, when they treated a patient with psoriasis with oral, intramuscular and intra-articular corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: The results from the questionnaire indicate that systemic corticosteroids for patients with psoriasis can cause flare-ups and should be used with care.

Analysis of the first 5 years of an interdisciplinary Rheumatology-Dermatology clinic.

BACKGROUND: Multispeciality clinics, such as combined psoriasis-psoriatic arthritis clinics, have shown improved outcomes in various diseases. At Massachusetts General Hospital, we are entering our ninth year of having an interdisciplinary Rheumatology-Dermatology (R-D) clinic. AIM: To evaluate the contribution of an R-D clinic by comparing care of patients pre- and post-evaluation in the combined clinic. As proxies of care, rates and comprehensiveness of evaluations (capillaroscopic examination, skin and joint examination) were compared between the combined clinic and standard Rheumatology or Dermatology clinic. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients at the R-D clinic in Massachusetts General Hospital during the period November 2012 to December 2017. RESULTS: Prior to the patients visiting the R-D only 5% of capillaroscopic examinations were documented, only 5% of rheumatologists specifically described a rash even when present, and pruritus was documented in only 6% of rheumatology notes. By contrast, in the R-D clinic, capillaroscopic, skin and joint examinations were documented in 100% of visits, and 19% of patients were given a different or a refined diagnosis. Although all our patients had cutaneous manifestations of their disease (hair loss, rash, itch, Raynaud phenomenon, ulcerations, calcinosis) only 34% had seen a dermatologist prior to the combined clinic and only 5% of those had had their concerns addressed by the rheumatologist. This suggests that 95% had a more complete evaluation and management of all aspects of their disease by attendance at the R-D clinic. CONCLUSION: Despite this study being limited by its retrospective nature, we found that it is an efficient model to achieve more comprehensive and potentially lower medication costs. Collaboration between dermatologists and rheumatologists in a combined clinic led to more complete skin and joint examinations, consistent tracking of capillaroscopic examination, better description of rash and improved management. Having this clinic helped in reaching a diagnosis and overall better disease control and outcome.

Geographical variations in COVID-19 perceptions and patient management: a national survey of rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perceptions and behaviors of rheumatologists in the United States (US) regarding the risk of COVID-19 for their autoimmune patients and the subsequent management of immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory medications. METHODS: We administered an online survey to a convenience sample of rheumatologists in the US from 4/8/20-5/4/20 via social media and group emails. Survey respondents provided demographic information such as, age, gender, state of practice, and practice type. We asked questions about COVID-19 risk in rheumatic patients, as well as their medication management during the pandemic. We conducted descriptive analysis and Multivariable regression models. RESULTS: 271 respondents completed the survey nationally. 48% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "Patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of COVID-19 irrespective of their immunosuppressive medications". 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement "The pandemic has led you to reduce the use/dosage/frequency of biologics", while 56% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "The pandemic has led you to reduce the use/dosage/frequency of steroids". A third of respondents indicated that at least 10% of their patients had self-discontinued or reduced at least one immunosuppressive medication to mitigate their risk of COVID-19. Responses to these questions as well as to questions regarding NSAID prescription patterns were significantly different in the Northeast region of US compared to other regions. CONCLUSION: In this national sample of rheumatologists, there are variations regarding perceptions of patients' risk of COVID-19, and how to manage medications such as NSAIDs, biologics and steroids during the pandemic. These variations are more pronounced in geographical areas where COVID-19 disease burden was high.

Rheumatologists' practice during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a survey in Egypt.

The aim of this work is to trace how rheumatologists all over Egypt are approaching the COVID-19 pandemic and what changes it has brought about in the patients' care with special attention to its effect on vulnerable rheumatic disease (RD) patients. This survey further aims to help inform the rheumatology community about the changes in practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey included 26 questions distributed to University staff members across Egypt members of the Egyptian College of Rheumatology (ECR). It takes 5-10 min to fill out. The practice setting of participating rheumatologists included University Teaching Hospitals that are the main rheumatology and clinical immunology service providers for adults and children RD patients. There was an overall agreement across the country in the responses to the survey that took a median time of 7 min to fill in. Potential changes in rheumatology outpatient practice by staff members evolved since the COVID-19 pandemic. None of the university rheumatology staff members has prescribed chloroquine or HCQ to prevent or treat COVID-19 in a non-hospitalized patient who was not previously on it. Twenty-three recommended decrease/avoid NSAIDs if the RD patient had confirmed COVID-19 or symptoms. There is an agreement to the key emerging frontline role of rheumatologists in treating COVID-19. During the pandemic, RD cases requiring admission were dealt with by several modified strategies. The overall agreement among the different university rheumatology departments during such critical situation has provoked the ECR to consider providing provisional guidelines for dealing with RD patients during this global catastrophe.

US Adult Rheumatologists' Perspectives on the Transition Process for Young Adults With Rheumatic Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the attitudes and common practices of adult rheumatologists in the US regarding health care transition (HCT) for young adults with rheumatic diseases. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was sent to US adult rheumatologist members of the American College of Rheumatology to collect demographic data and information on attitudes and common practices regarding the transition process. RESULTS: Of 4,064 contacted rheumatologists, 203 (5%) completed the survey. Almost half of respondents (45.1%) were never trained in transition practices, and 74.7% were not familiar with the American Academy of Pediatrics/American Academy of Family Physicians/American College of Physicians Consensus Statement About Transitions for Youth with Special Healthcare Needs. Only 56.2% felt comfortable caring for former pediatric patients. The vast majority of respondents (90.7%) did not have a multidisciplinary transition team, and 37% did not have a plan for transitioning pediatric patients into their practice. Most adult rheumatologists were unsatisfied with the current transition process (92.9%), due to insufficient resources, personnel (91.1%), and time in clinic (86.9%). They also were unsatisfied with referral data received concerning previous treatments (48.9%), hospitalization history (48%), disease activity index (45.1%), medical history summary (43.9%), comorbidities (36.4%), medication list (34.1%), and disease classification (32.6%). Three major barriers to HCT were lack of insurance reimbursement (33.7%), knowledge about community resources (30.8%), and lapses in care between primary provider and specialist (27.8%). CONCLUSION: This survey identified substantial gaps in knowledge and resources regarding HCT for young adults with rheumatic diseases. These may be best addressed by further training, research, dedicated resources, adequate payment, and practice guidelines.

Association of Patient, Prescriber, and Region With the Initiation of First Prescription of Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Among Older Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Identical Health Insurance Coverage.

Importance: Prescribing the first biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an important decision for patients, their physicians, and payers, with considerable costs and clinical implications. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) have known effectiveness and safety profiles and are less expensive; therefore, determining the variables contributing to csDMARD treatment duration is an essential question for patients, physicians, and payers. Objectives: To describe access to the first biologic DMARD prescription in a population of patients with RA and identical comprehensive health insurance coverage in Ontario, Canada, and to explore the associations of patient, prescriber, and geographic region with differences in time to first biologic prescription. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of incident patients with RA used administrative data with surveillance and patient-level data collected at yearly intervals. A total of 17 672 patients were included in the study; they were residents of Ontario, Canada, had an incident RA diagnosis at age 67 or older between 2002 and 2015, and received at least 1 csDMARD. Data were analyzed in November 2017. Exposure: Patient variables were age, sex, disease duration, socioeconomic status, distance to care, and supply of care in the patient's area of residence. Prescriber covariates were year of graduation, specialty of practice, and supply of rheumatologic care in the patient's geographic region. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time from first csDMARD prescription to receipt of first biologic medication. Results: Of 17 672 patients, 11 598 (65.6%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 75.2 (5.8) years. Characteristics associated with longer time to receipt of a biologic prescription were older age (HR for every 5-year increase, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62-0.71; P < .001), male sex (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89; P < .001), and distance to the nearest rheumatologist (HR per 10-km increase, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99; P < .001). Prescribers were primarily rheumatologists (151 of 214 [70.6%]) and primary care physicians (26 of 214 [12.1%]). After adjusting for the number of patients eligible to receive biologic DMARDs, rheumatologists' preferences (ie, yearly prescription rates) for using biologic DMARDs increased over time, from 1.7% in 2001 to 4.9% in 2015. After adjusting for calendar year and patient-, prescriber-, and region-level characteristics, substantial variation between prescribers in rates of prescribing a first biologic DMARD were found (65% variance). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found variation in time to receipt of first biologic DMARD after prescription of first csDMARD in a population with RA after adjustment for individual-level patient, prescriber, and geographic area covariates, despite identical universal health insurance coverage.

A quarter of patients time their early rheumatoid arthritis onset differently than physicians.

Objective: Early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment requires timely recognition. This large, multicentre study compared patient-reported vs physician-reported onset of early RA. Methods: Patients from the Canadian Early ArThritis CoHort with early/suspected RA (persistent synovitis <1 year) completed questionnaires asking about the date of symptom onset; and rheumatologists date of onset for persistent synovitis. Groups with similar reported timing (patient and physician) versus differing timing of 30 days or more were compared. Results: In 2683 patients, the median patient symptom duration (IQR) was 178 days (163) and physician-reported duration was 166 (138). 1940 (72%) patients had similar patient-reported and physician-reported onset (<30 days), whereas 497 (18%) reported onset 30 or more days preceding physicians, and 246 (9%) 30 or more days after physicians. Patients reporting onset preceding physicians had lower baseline Disease Activity Score based on 28 joint count, swollen joint counts and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p<0.05). Patients reporting onset after physicians were more likely to be rheumatoid factor positive (p<0.001) and had higher anticitrullinated protein antibody titres (p<0.009). Regression showed low income, smoking, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis and baseline non-methotrexate non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use were predictors for longer patient-reported symptoms. At 12 months, patients reporting longer symptom duration than physicians had lower rates of Simplified Disease Activity Index remission and higher physician global assessments. Conclusion: Over one-fourth of patients reported differences of >1 month in symptom onset from their rheumatologist. Patients with longer symptom durations had less improvement at 1 year, which may be reflective of comorbid musculoskeletal conditions.