Low-dose Methotrexate Therapy Does Not Affect Semen Parameters and Sperm DNA.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is widely used in inflammatory diseases during the patients' reproductive years. The effect on male fertility and sperm DNA integrity is largely unknown. We evaluated sperm DNA integrity and basic semen parameters according to the World Health Organization (WHO) in male patients with inflammatory diseases treated with methotrexate. METHODS: Semen samples from 14 patients on low-dose maintenance methotrexate were compared with samples from 40 healthy volunteers. Further, 5 patients delivered samples on and off methotrexate therapy for paired comparison. Sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI), concentration, motility, and morphology were evaluated. Blood sex hormones and methotrexate levels were measured in blood and semen. RESULTS: DNA fragmentation index in methotrexate-treated patients was comparable with that in healthy volunteers (DFI, 11.5 vs 15.0; P = .06), and DFI did not change significantly on and off methotrexate in the paired samples (DFI, 12.0 vs 14.0; P = 0.35). Sperm concentration, motility, and morphology did not differ between men treated with methotrexate and healthy volunteers. Sperm progressive motility increased off therapy compared with on therapy (65.0% vs 45.0%, P = .04), but all fluctuations in progressive motility were within the WHO reference interval. All methotrexate polyglutamates1-5 were detected in blood, but only methotrexate polyglutamate1 in semen. Serum testosterone was unaffected by methotrexate therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with low-dose methotrexate have a sperm quality comparable with that of healthy volunteers, and methotrexate treatment does not increase sperm DNA fragmentation. This study does not support cryopreservation of semen before treatment initiation nor a 3-month methotrexate-free interval prior to conception.

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.

New Roadmap for the Journey From Internist to Rheumatologist.

OBJECTIVE: Measurement is necessary to gauge improvement. US training programs have not previously used shared standards to assess trainees' mastery of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to practice rheumatology competently. In 2014, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Next Accreditation System began requiring semiannual evaluation of all medicine subspecialty fellows on 23 internal medicine subspecialty reporting milestones. Since these reporting milestones are not subspecialty specific, rheumatology curricular milestones were needed to guide rheumatology fellowship training programs and fellows on the training journey from internist to rheumatologist. METHODS: Rheumatology curricular milestones were collaboratively composed by expanding the internal medicine reporting milestones to delineate the specific targets of rheumatology fellowship training within 6 ACGME core competencies. The 2006 American College of Rheumatology core curriculum for rheumatology training programs was updated. RESULTS: A total of 80 rheumatology curricular milestones were created, defining progressive learning through training; most focus on patient care and medical knowledge. The core curriculum update incorporates the new curricular milestones and rheumatology entrustable professional activities. CONCLUSION: Rheumatology curricular milestones are now available for implementation by rheumatology fellowship training programs, providing a clear roadmap for specific training goals and a guide to track each fellow's achievement over a 2-year training period. The comprehensive core curriculum delineates the essential breadth of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that define rheumatology, and provides a guide for educational activities during fellowship training. These guiding documents are now used to train and assess fellows as they prepare for independent rheumatology practice as the next generation of rheumatologists.

What Is a Rheumatologist and How Do We Make One?

OBJECTIVE: Graduate medical education is a critical time in the training of a rheumatologist, and purposeful evaluation of abilities during this time is essential for long-term success as an independent practitioner. The internal medicine subspecialties collectively developed a uniform set of reporting milestones by which trainees can be assessed and receive formative feedback, providing clarity of accomplishment as well as areas for improvement in training. Furthermore, the reporting milestones provide a schema for assessment and evaluation of fellows by supervisors. The internal medicine subspecialties were also tasked with considering entrustable professional activities (EPAs), which define the abilities of a subspecialty physician who has attained sufficient mastery of the field to be accountable to stakeholders and participate in independent practice. Although EPAs have been established for a few specialties, they had not yet been described for rheumatology. EPAs have value as descriptors of the comprehensive abilities, knowledge, and skills of a practicing rheumatologist. The rheumatology EPAs have a role in defining a specialist in rheumatology upon completion of training, and also represent the ways our specialty defines our abilities that are enduring throughout practice. METHODS: We describe the collaborative process of the development of both the subspecialty reporting milestones and the rheumatology EPAs. The reporting milestones evolved through discussions and collaborations among representatives from the Association of Specialty Professors, the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The EPAs were a product of deliberations by the Next Accreditation System (NAS) working group of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Committee on Rheumatology Training and Workforce Issues. RESULTS: Twenty-three subspecialty reporting milestones and 14 rheumatology EPAs were advanced and refined over the course of 3 subspecialty reporting milestone development summits and 3 ACR NAS working group meetings, respectively. CONCLUSION: The subspecialty reporting milestones and rheumatology EPAs presented here stipulate reasonable and measurable expectations for rheumatologists-in-training. Together, these tools aim to promote enrichment and greater accountability in the training of fellows. Additionally, the EPAs define, for all stakeholders, the expertise of a rheumatologist in practice.

Regional distribution of adult rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the distribution of rheumatology practices in the US and factors associated with that distribution, in order to better understand the supply of the rheumatology workforce. METHODS: Using the American College of Rheumatology membership database, all practicing adult rheumatologist office addresses were mapped with ArcView software. The number of rheumatologists per Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) was calculated. To investigate whether sociodemographic factors correlated with clustering of rheumatologists, covariates from the 2010 US Census for each CBSA, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, and median household income, were modeled. RESULTS: Many CBSAs, predominantly smaller micropolitan areas, did not have a practicing rheumatologist. For some of these smaller micropolitan areas (with populations of at least 40,000), the closest practicing rheumatologist was more than 200 miles away. However, we also identified several more-populous areas (populations of 200,000 or more) without a practicing rheumatologist. Greater numbers of rheumatologists were more likely to practice in areas with higher population densities and higher median incomes. More rheumatologists were also found in CBSAs in which there were rheumatology training programs. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that many smaller regions of the country have no or few practicing adult rheumatologists. Patients with chronic rheumatic conditions in these areas likely have limited access to rheumatology care. Policy changes could address potential regional rheumatology workforce shortages, but limitations of the current data would need to be addressed prior to implementation of such changes.