Search

Objective: Despite the recognized benefits of collecting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outcomes measures, their use in routine care is inconsistent. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted semistructured interviews with US rheumatologists and practice personnel to assess workflows, opportunities, and challenges in collecting RA outcome measures. Using insights from interviews, we developed the RA Measures Toolkit to enhance their use in clinical practice., Methods: We invited 138 Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry practices and 5 academic medical centers with ≥30 patients eligible for RA outcome measures to participate in the study. Practices were classified based on their performance in quality payment programs. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically using deductive and inductive techniques. The findings were used to create the RA Measures Toolkit., Results: We conducted 20 interviews with 38 participants across 20 practices. Key themes within the CFIR domains highlighted the challenges and best practices in RA outcome measure collection and included (1) process: the variability in practices' use of RA outcome measures and the importance of streamlined workflows; (2) intervention: challenges of integrating patient-reported outcomes into electronic health records; and (3) individual characteristics: importance of clinic culture around quality improvement. Using these data, we developed the RA Measures Toolkit, a multimedia online resource, featuring guidelines, best practices, and educational resources to improve the efficiency of current workflows and to enhance patient care., Conclusion: This study identifies critical gaps in the collection of RA outcome measures in US rheumatology practices and provides actionable recommendations and resources to address challenges via the RA Measures Toolkit., (© 2024 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) increase the risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes. Although rurality is associated with higher post-COVID-19 mortality in the general population, whether rurality elevates this risk among people with AIRD is unknown. We assessed associations between rurality and post-COVID-19 all-cause mortality, up to two years post infection, among people with AIRD using a large nationally sampled US cohort., Methods: This retrospective study used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, a medical records repository containing COVID-19 patient data. We included adults with two or more AIRD diagnostic codes and a COVID-19 diagnosis documented between April 2020 and March 2023. Rural residency was categorized using patient residential zip codes. We adjusted for AIRD medications and glucocorticoid prescription, age, sex, race and ethnicity, tobacco or substance use, comorbid burden, and SARS-CoV-2 variant-dominant periods. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards with inverse probability treatment weighting assessed associations between rurality and two-year all-cause mortality., Results: Among the 86,467 SARS-CoV-2-infected persons with AIRD, we observed a higher risk for two-year post-COVID-19 mortality in rural versus urban dwellers. Rural-residing persons with AIRD had higher two-year all-cause mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.29). Glucocorticoid, immunosuppressive, and rituximab prescriptions were associated with a higher risk for two-year post-COVID-19 mortality, whereas risk with nonbiologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs was lower., Conclusion: Rural residence in people with AIRD was independently associated with higher two-year post-COVID-19 mortality in a large US cohort after adjusting for background risk factors. Policymakers and health care providers should consider these findings when designing interventions to improve outcomes in people with AIRD following SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially among high-risk rural residents., (Published 2024. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Objective: The goal of this study was to ascertain COVID-19 vaccine uptake, reasons for hesitancy, and self-reported flare in a large rheumatology practice-based network., Methods: A tablet-based survey was deployed by 108 rheumatology practices from December 2021 to December 2022. Patients were asked about COVID-19 vaccine status and why they might not receive a vaccine or booster. We used descriptive statistics to explore the differences between vaccination status and vaccine and booster hesitancy, comparing patients with and without autoimmune and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs). We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between vaccine uptake and AIIRD status and self-reported flare and AIIRD status. We reported adjusted odds ratios (aORs)., Results: Of the 61,158 patients, 89% reported at least one dose of vaccine; of the vaccinated, 68% reported at least one booster. Vaccinated patients were less likely to have AIIRDs (44% vs 56%). A greater proportion of patients with AIIRDs were vaccine hesitant (14% vs 10%) and booster hesitant (21% vs 16%) compared to patients without AIIRDs. Safety concerns (28%) and side effects (23%) were the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy, whereas a lack of recommendation from the physician was the primary factor for booster hesitancy (23%). Patients with AIIRD did not have increased odds of self-reported flare or worsening disease compared to patients without with AIIRD (aOR 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.05). Among the patients who were vaccine hesitant and booster hesitant, 12% and 39% later reported receiving a respective dose. Patients with AIIRD were 32% less likely to receive a vaccine (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.65-0.72) versus patients without AIIRD., Conclusion: Some patients who are vaccine and booster hesitant eventually receive a vaccine dose, and future interventions tailored to patients with AIIRD may be fruitful., (© 2023 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: The objective is to update recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) for patients with rheumatic or nonrheumatic conditions receiving >3 months treatment with glucocorticoids (GCs) ≥2.5 mg daily., Methods: An updated systematic literature review was performed for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential therapy. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A Voting Panel achieved ≥70% consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations., Results: For adults beginning or continuing >3 months of GC treatment, we strongly recommend as soon as possible after initiation of GCs, initial assessment of fracture risks with clinical fracture assessment, bone mineral density with vertebral fracture assessment or spinal x-ray, and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool if ≥40 years old. For adults at medium, high, or very high fracture risk, we strongly recommend pharmacologic treatment. Choice of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates, denosumab, or parathyroid hormone analogs should be made by shared decision-making. Anabolic agents are conditionally recommended as initial therapy for those with high and very high fracture risk. Recommendations are made for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, people who may become pregnant, and people receiving very high-dose GC treatment. New recommendations for both discontinuation of osteoporosis therapy and sequential therapies are included., Conclusion: This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for management of GIOP. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies., (© 2023 American College of Rheumatology. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Objective: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is associated with several specific risk factors for fracture due to the complications of the disease and related medications. The present study was undertaken to examine the relationship between SSc-associated clinical features and fracture rate in a large US cohort., Methods: Participants with SSc in FORWARD, The National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, were included (1998-2019). Age- and sex-matched individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) from the same database were included as comparators. The primary end point was self-reported major osteoporotic fracture. Cox proportional hazards models were used to study the associations between risk factors and fractures., Results: The study included 922 individuals (SSc patients, n = 154; OA patients, n = 768). Eighty-seven percent were female, with a mean age of 57.8 years. Fifty-one patients developed at least 1 fracture during a median of 4.2 years (0.5-22.0 years) of follow-up. Patients with SSc had more frequent fractures compared to OA comparators (hazard ratio [HR] 2.38 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.47-3.83]). Among patients with SSc, a higher Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index score (HR 1.45 [95% CI 1.20-1.75]) and a higher Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index score (HR 3.83 [95% CI 2.12-6.93]) were associated with more fractures. Diabetes mellitus (HR 5.89 [95% CI 2.51-13.82]) and renal disease (HR 2.43 [95% CI 1.10-5.37]) were independently associated with fracture among SSc patients relative to SSc patients without these comorbidities., Conclusion: Our findings highlight factors associated with fracture among patients with SSc. Disability as measured by the HAQ DI is a particularly strong indicator of fracture rate in SSc. Improving SSc patients' functional status, where possible, may lead to better long-term outcomes., (© 2023 The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Patients with acute gout are frequently treated in the emergency department (ED) and represent a typically underresourced and understudied population. A key limitation for gout research in the ED is the timely ability to identify acute gout patients. Our goal was to refine a multicriteria, electronic medical record alert for gout flares and to determine its diagnostic characteristics in the ED., Methods: The gout flare alert used electronic medical record data from ED nursing notes and was triggered by the term 'gout' preceding past medical history in the chief complaint, the term 'gout' and a musculoskeletal problem in the chief complaint, or the term 'gout' in the problem list and a musculoskeletal chief complaint. We validated its diagnostic properties to assess presence/absence of gout through manual medical record review using adjudicated expert consensus as the gold standard., Results: In January 2020, we analyzed 202 patient records from 2 university-based EDs; from these records, 57 patients were identified by our gout flare alert, and 145 were identified by other means as potentially having an acute gout flare. The gout flare alert's positive predictive value was 47% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 34-60%), negative predictive value was 94% (95% CI 90-98%), sensitivity was 75% (95% CI 61-89%), and specificity was 82% (95% CI 76-88%). The diagnostic properties were similar at both institutions., Conclusion: Our multicomponent gout flare alert had reasonable sensitivity and specificity, albeit a modest positive predictive value. An electronic gout flare alert may help enable the conduct of gout research in the ED setting., (© 2022 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To assess the perceptions and preferences of telemedicine among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We conducted an online survey among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Attitudes about telemedicine (i.e., telemedicine acceptability), evaluated using the validated Telemedicine Perception Questionnaire (TMPQ), and visit satisfaction were assessed for different telemedicine experiences and types of autoimmune rheumatic disease., Results: Of 3,369 invitations, 819 responses were received. Participants had a mean ± SD age of 58.6 ± 11.6 years and were mostly White (n = 759, or 92.7%) and female (n = 702, or 85.7%). Of the 618 participants who said that telemedicine was available to them, 449 (72.7%) reported having a telemedicine visit, with 303 (67.5%) reporting attending a telemedicine video visit. On a 0 to 10 scale, the mean ± SD visit satisfaction score was 7.3 ± 1.8, with 25.8% of respondents being very satisfied (scores of 9 or 10). Video visits and higher TMPQ scores were associated with higher satisfaction. Compared to those who did not experience a telemedicine visit, patients who did were more likely to prefer telemedicine (video or phone) for routine visits (73.7% versus 44.3%; P < 0.001), reviewing test results (64.8% versus 53.8%; P < 0.001), when considering changing medications (40.5% versus 26.8%; P < 0.001), and when starting a new injectable medication (18.9% versus 12.7%; P = 0.02)., Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases frequently had telemedicine visits, with the majority held via video, and were satisfied with these visits. These results suggest that because patients prefer telemedicine for certain visit reasons, maximizing effective use of telemedicine will require personalized patient scheduling., (© 2022 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: We aimed to assess trends in anxiety and interruptions in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use among patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate whether DMARD interruptions were associated with disease flares., Methods: ArthritisPower, the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network, and other patient organizations invited members to join a 52-week longitudinal study, with baseline surveys completed March 29 to June 30, 2020, with follow-up through May 2021. Logistic regression incorporating generalized estimating equations evaluated associations between interruptions in DMARD use and self-reported disease flares at the next survey, adjusting for demographic characteristics, medications, disease, and calendar time., Results: Among 2,424 patients completing a median of 5 follow-up surveys, the mean age was 57 years, 87% were female, and the most common conditions were rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, and psoriatic arthritis. Average Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety T scores decreased from April 2020 (58.7) to May 2021 (53.7) (P < 0.001 for trend). Interruptions in DMARD use decreased from April (11.2%) to December 2020 (7.5%) (P < 0.001) but increased through May 2021 (14.0%) (P < 0.001). Interruptions in DMARD use were associated with a significant increase in severe flares (rated ≥6 of 10) at the next survey (12.9% versus 8.0% [odds ratio (OR) 1.71 (95% confidence interval [95% CI 1.23, 2.36]) although not any flare (OR 1.18 [95% CI 0.89, 1.58])]., Conclusion: Anxiety and interruptions in DMARD use initially decreased over time, but DMARD interruptions increased during 2021, possibly related to an increase in COVID-19 cases or vaccine availability. Interruptions in DMARD use were associated with increased rates of severe disease flares, highlighting the importance of avoiding unnecessary DMARD interruptions., (© 2021 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on community-based rheumatology care and the use of telehealth is unclear. We undertook this study to investigate the impact of the pandemic on rheumatology care delivery in a large community practice-based network., Methods: Using a community practice-based rheumatologist network, we examined trends in in-person versus telehealth visits versus canceled visits in 3 time periods: pre-COVID-19, COVID-19 transition (6 weeks beginning March 23, 2020), and post-COVID-19 transition (May-August). In the transition period, we compared patients who received in-person care versus telehealth visits versus those who cancelled all visits. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with canceled or telehealth visits., Results: Pre-COVID-19, there were 7,075 visits/week among 60,002 unique rheumatology patients cared for by ~300 providers practicing in 92 offices. This number decreased substantially (24.6% reduction) during the COVID-19 transition period for in-person visits but rebounded to pre-COVID-19 levels during the post-COVID-19 transition. There were almost no telehealth visits pre-COVID-19, but telehealth increased substantially during the COVID-19 transition (41.4% of all follow-up visits) and slightly decreased during the post-COVID-19 transition (27.7% of visits). Older age, female sex, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, lower socioeconomic status, and rural residence were associated with a greater likelihood of canceling visits. Most factors were also associated with a lower likelihood of having telehealth versus in-office visits. Patients living further from the rheumatologists' office were more likely to use telehealth., Conclusion: COVID-19 led to large disruptions in rheumatology care; these disruptions were only partially offset by increases in telehealth use and disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities and patients with lower socioeconomic status. During the COVID-19 era, telehealth continues to be an important part of rheumatology practice, but disparities in access to care exist for some vulnerable groups., (© 2021, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To identify and prioritize patient- and rheumatologist-perceived barriers to achieving disease control., Methods: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and rheumatologists from the Corrona registry were invited by e-mail to participate in nominal groups. Two separate lists of barriers were created, 1 from RA patient-only nominal groups and the other from rheumatologist-only nominal groups, and barriers were sorted into themes. Next, using an online survey, a random sample of RA patients from the Corrona registry were asked to rank their top 3 barriers to achieving disease control., Results: Four nominal groups totaling 37 RA patients identified patient barriers to achieving control of RA activity that were classified into 17 themes. Three nominal groups totaling 25 rheumatologists identified barriers that were classified into 11 themes. The financial aspects of RA care ranked first for both types of nominal groups, while medication risk aversion ranked second among the perceived barriers of the physician nominal group and third among those of the RA patient nominal group. Among the 450 RA patients surveyed, 77% considered RA a top health priority, and 51% reported being aware of the treat-to-target strategy for RA care; the 3 most important patient-perceived challenges to achieving disease control were RA prognosis uncertainty, medication risk aversion, and the financial/administrative burden associated with RA care., Conclusion: There are common, potentially modifiable, patient- and rheumatologist-reported barriers to achieving RA disease control, including perceived medication risk aversion, suboptimal treatment adherence, and suboptimal patient-physician communication regarding the benefits of tight control of disease activity in RA. Addressing these obstacles may improve adherence to goal-directed RA care., (© 2020, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To identify the perspectives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on electronic recording of between-visit disease activity and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and on sharing this information with health care providers or peers., Methods: Patients with RA were recruited to participate in focus groups from December 2014 to April 2015. The topic guide and analysis were based on the Andersen-Newman framework. Sessions were audiorecorded, transcribed, independently coded, and analyzed for themes., Results: Thirty-one patients participated in 7 focus groups. Their mean ± SD age was 51 ± 13.1 years, 94% were women, 52% were African American, 11% were Hispanic, and 37% were white. Three themes emerged: provider communication, information-seeking about RA, and social and peer support. Participants expressed a willingness to track disease activity data to share with health care providers electronically if providers would act on the information. Participants envisioned symptom tracking and information sharing as a mechanism to relay and obtain reliable information about RA. Participants were also interested in electronic communication between visits if it facilitated learning about symptom management and enhanced opportunities for social support among patients with RA., Conclusion: Patients with RA may be amenable to electronic collection and sharing of PRO-type data between clinical encounters if it facilitates communication with health care providers and provides access to reliable information about RA. Providing patients with social support was important for enhancing PROs collection by helping them overcome barriers by using electronic devices and overcome reservations about the value of these data., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To describe radiographic changes in African Americans with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the Consortium for the Longitudinal Evaluations of African Americans with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (CLEAR) Registry, a multicenter observational study., Methods: Self-declared African American patients were enrolled in CLEAR I, a longitudinal cohort of early RA (disease duration of <2 years) from 2000 to 2005, or in CLEAR II, a cross-sectional cohort (any disease duration) from 2006 to the present. Demographic and clinical data were obtained, and sets of hand/wrist and foot radiographs were scored using the modified Sharp/van der Heijde scoring system., Results: A total of 357 and 418 patients were enrolled in CLEAR I and CLEAR II, respectively. We report here an interim analysis of radiographic severity in these patients. For the CLEAR I cohort, 294 patients had a mean radiographic score of 2.89 at the baseline visit; 32.0% showed either erosions (25.9%) or joint space narrowing (JSN; 19.4%). At the 36-month visit, the mean score was 5.65; 44.2% had erosions, 41.5% had JSN, and 54.4% had either. Among those patients without radiographic damage at baseline, 18.9% had progressed at the 36-month visit, compared with 57.1% of those with baseline damage (P < 0.0001). For the CLEAR II cohort, of 167 patients with RA of any duration, 65.3% exhibited joint erosions, 65.3% exhibited JSN, and 74.8% exhibited either. The mean radiographic score was 33.42., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest radiographic study of African American RA patients. Damage occurs early in the disease and is associated with radiographic progression at 3 years of disease duration. The CLEAR Registry will provide a valuable resource for future analyses of genetic, clinical, and environmental factors associated with radiographic severity of RA in African Americans.