Search

Objective To provide updated American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity measurements to facilitate a treat-to-target approach in routine clinical care. Methods A working group conducted a systematic literature review from the time of the prior ACR recommendations literature search. Properties of disease activity measures were abstracted, and study quality was assessed using the Consensus-Based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments 4-point scoring method, allowing for overall level of evidence assessment. Measures that fulfilled a minimum standard were identified, and through a modified Delphi process preferred measures were selected for regular use in most clinic settings. Results The search identified 5,199 articles, of which 110 were included in the review. This search identified 46 RA disease activity measures that contained patient, provider, laboratory, and/or imaging data. Descriptions of the measures, properties, study quality, level of evidence, and feasibility were abstracted and scored. Following a modified Delphi process, 11 measures fulfilled a minimum standard for regular use in most clinic settings, and 5 measures were recommended: the Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints with Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate or C-Reactive Protein Level, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, and Patient Activity Scale-II. Conclusion We have updated prior ACR recommendations for preferred RA disease activity measures, identifying 11 measures that met a minimum standard for regular use and 5 measures that were preferred for regular use in most clinic settings.

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.

Background Though the proportion of female Internal Medicine (IM) residents and faculty has increased, there is minimal large scale modern data comparing resident performance by gender. This study sought to examine the effects of resident and faculty gender on resident evaluations. Methods Retrospective observational study over 5 years in a single IM program. IM certifying examination pass rates were obtained from the American Board of IM. Results Four hundred eighty-eight residents (195 women, 293 men), evaluated by 430 attending physicians (163 women, 270 men) were included. Twelve thousand six hundred eighty-one evaluations between 2007 and 2012 were analyzed. Female residents scored higher in two domains (Medical Interviewing, and Interpersonal and Communication Skills) (p

Background To optimize resident learning, programs need to readily assess resident well-being. There is a lack of easy-to-use, acceptable instruments for this task. Objective We created a well-being “fuel gauge,” and assessed the acceptability and feasibility of this weekly electronic communication pipeline for residents to report and discuss their well-being. Methods A well-being fuel gauge assessment was administered weekly over the course of 1 academic year (July 2016 to June 2017) in a large internal medicine residency program. The well-being gauge asked residents to report their fuel levels using a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale (1, empty; 3, half tank; and 5, full tank). Residents who provided low scores (1 or 2) were contacted by program leadership, and the program director sent weekly e-mail updates that addressed residents' comments on their well-being fuel gauge. Results Of 163 residents, 149 (91%) provided data on their well-being fuel gauge, with a 53% average weekly response rate. Fifty-four percent of residents (80 of 149) reported a low score over the course of the year, and 4 residents only used the assessment to report a low score. Comments on average consisted of 280 characters (SD = 357) and were lengthier and more prevalent with lower fuel gauge scores. We analyzed the relationship between scores and comments. Conclusions The well-being fuel gauge was well accepted by most residents and was easy to administer and to oversee by program directors. It facilitated ongoing monitoring of well-being and follow-up to address factors contributing to low well-being.

Background The ACR launched the RISE registry in 2014 to facilitate quality improvement on a national scale. The registry passively extracts electronic health record (EHR) data from rheumatology practices, aggregates and analyzes these data centrally, and feeds performance on quality measures back to clinicians using a web-based dashboard. Objectives We used data from RISE to 1) examine variation in performance on quality measures across practices, and 2) evaluate trends in measure performance over time. Methods RISE9s informatics platform continuously collects data from the EHRs of participating practices, allowing centralized aggregation and analysis of quality measures. We analyzed data collected between July 1, 2014-July 1, 2016 on all patients seen by 294 clinicians across 63 practices. Measures in the areas of rheumatoid arthritis, drug safety, preventive care and gout were examined. Performance on quality measures, defined as the percentage of eligible patients receiving recommended care, was examined at the practice level. To examine trends in performance over time, we took the subset of practices that continuously participated in RISE since its inception (n=44), and developed 1) control charts and 2) logistic regression models, in which the outcome was practice-level performance each month and the predictor was time. Results Data from 289,812 patients was examined. Mean (SD) age was 59 (16) years, 75% were female, 21% were racial/ethnic minorities, and 37% had public insurance. Most rheumatologists were in a group practice (73%); 25% were in solo practice and 2% part of a larger health system. Performance on measures varied significantly across practices (Table). The largest gaps were observed for gout and preventive care. For 4 of 5 measures for which the Medicare program has set national benchmarks, average performance of RISE practices exceeded targets. Of 11 measures, performance improved over time on 5 measures (p Conclusions We found significant variation in performance on quality measures across RISE practices, with the largest gaps seen in gout care and preventive care. Some practices have achieved a very high level of performance. Over time, RISE practices demonstrated improvement in over half of the measures examined. As rheumatologists aim to improve quality of care, RISE will, by design, allow participants to measure, benchmark, and continuously monitor performance improvement. Disclosure of Interest None declared

The RACAT (Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies) trial found triple therapy to be noninferior to etanercept-methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).To determine the cost-effectiveness of etanercept-methotrexate versus triple therapy as a first-line strategy.A within-trial analysis based on the 353 participants in the RACAT trial and a lifetime analysis that extrapolated costs and outcomes by using a decision analytic cohort model.The RACAT trial and sources from the literature.Patients with active RA despite at least 12 weeks of methotrexate therapy.24 weeks and lifetime.Societal and Medicare.Etanercept-methotrexate first versus triple therapy first.Incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).The within-trial analysis found that etanercept-methotrexate as first-line therapy provided marginally more QALYs but accumulated substantially higher drug costs. Differences in other costs between strategies were negligible. The ICERs for first-line etanercept-methotrexate and triple therapy were $2.7 million per QALY and $0.98 million per QALY over 24 and 48 weeks, respectively. The lifetime analysis suggested that first-line etanercept-methotrexate would result in 0.15 additional lifetime QALY, but this gain would cost an incremental $77 290, leading to an ICER of $521 520 per QALY per patient.Considering a long-term perspective, an initial strategy of etanercept-methotrexate and biologics with similar cost and efficacy is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with using triple therapy first, even under optimistic assumptions.Data on the long-term benefit of triple therapy are uncertain.Initiating biologic therapy without trying triple therapy first increases costs while providing minimal incremental benefit.The Cooperative Studies Program, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and an interagency agreement with the National Institutes of Health-American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

This update presents and discusses 8 important studies in rheumatology that were published in 2016 and are potentially relevant to general internists.

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice. The American College of Rheumatology is an independent, professional, medical and scientific society which does not guarantee, warrant, or endorse any commercial product or service. Objective. Although the systematic measurement of disease activity facilitates clinical decision making in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), no recommendations currently exist on which measures should be applied in clinical practice in the US. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) convened a Working Group (WG) to comprehensively evaluate the validity, feasibility, and acceptability of available RA disease activity measures and derive recommendations for their use in clinical practice. Methods. The Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Disease Activity Measures Working Group conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify RA disease activity measures. Using exclusion criteria, input from an Expert Advisory Panel (EAP), and psychometric analysis, a list of potential measures was created. A survey was administered to rheumatologists soliciting input. The WG used these survey results in conjunction with the psychometric analyses to derive final recommendations. Results. Systematic review of the literature resulted in identification of 63 RA disease activity measures. Application of exclusion criteria and ratings by the EAP narrowed the list to 14 measures for further evaluation. Practicing rheumatologists rated 9 of these 14 measures as most useful and feasible. From these 9 measures, the WG selected 6 with the best psychometric properties for inclusion in the final set of ACR-recommended RA disease activity measures. Conclusion. We recommend the Clinical Disease Activity Index, Disease Activity Score with 28-joint counts (erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein), Patient Activity Scale (PAS), PAS-II, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data with 3 measures, and Simplified Disease Activity Index because they are accurate reflections of disease activity; are sensitive to change; discriminate well between low, moderate, and high disease activity states; have remission criteria; and are feasible to perform in clinical settings.

We describe a case of an adult with dermatomyositis (DM) who presents with a rash, high fevers, tachycardia and hypotension, initially concerning for an infectious aetiology or a DM flare. She was found to have cytomegalovirus viraemia which improved after starting valganciclovir. After extensive workup and lack of improvement with broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy, intravenous immunoglobulin and steroids, the patient was diagnosed with macrophage activation syndrome after bone marrow biopsy and levels of soluble CD25 (soluble interleukin (IL)-2 receptor) and IL2 were obtained. Unfortunately, despite therapy with dexamethasone, anakinra and etoposide, the patient decompensated and the patient's family opted for comfort care. The patient subsequently expired in the intensive care unit.

Objective To determine the clinical course and optimum treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–associated myositis. Methods Sixty-four patients attending a county outpatient HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome facility were referred for the presence of elevated creatine kinase (CK) levels or muscle weakness. Patients underwent neurologic and rheumatologic evaluation, electromyography, and muscle biopsy after exclusion for recreational drug or alcohol use, metabolic/endocrine disorders, zidovudine therapy, and other infections. Results Thirteen patients (20%) had biopsy-proven myositis. The median duration of HIV infection prior to diagnosis of myositis was 4.3 years (range 0–11 years). Six patients had concomitant diffuse infiltrative lymphocytosis syndrome. There was no correlation of severity of weakness, stage of HIV infection, or retroviral treatment with the CK level at diagnosis. Eight patients received prednisone (60 mg/day) with 5 attaining complete resolution of myositis. The remaining 3 patients received immunosuppressive therapy (azathioprine or methotrexate and intravenous immunoglobulin) and had normalization of strength and CK. Four patients had spontaneous resolution of their myositis without treatment. Conclusion HIV-associated myositis occurs at any stage of HIV infection, has a relatively good prognosis, responds well to immunosuppressive therapy, and has little evidence of adverse outcome on the HIV infection.

Increasing evidence suggests low disease activity or remission is achievable in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Using a treat to target strategy (T2T) has been shown to achieve these targets of remission or low disease activity in RA. In order to successfully treat to target, rheumatologists need reliable measures of disease activity to switch and/or escalate therapy to achieve or maintain therapeutic targets. Multiple disease-activity measures have been developed for both research and clinical practice. For clinical practice, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has recommended the PAS, PAS II, RAPID 3, CDAI, DAS 28, and SDAI for measuring disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. Each of these measures has strengths and limitations, but they all accurately reflect disease activity, discriminate well between disease states, and are feasible to perform in the clinical setting. Implementation in the clinical setting can be optimized through leveraging technology and systems redesign. Tools such as web-based and smartphone applications have been developed to increase the ease with which these measures can be deployed. Disease-activity measurement in rheumatoid arthritis is included in the rheumatoid arthritis quality measures group in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' incentive-based Physician Quality Reporting System.

This Update summarizes studies published in 2015 that the authors consider highly relevant to the practice of rheumatology.

Context Ustekinumab and briakinumab, monoclonal antibodies to the shared p40 subunit of interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23, have shown efficacy in treating chronic plaque psoriasis (CPP). Preliminary reports of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in psoriasis patients receiving anti–IL-12/23 agents have prompted concern. Objective To evaluate a possible association between biologic therapies for CPP and MACEs via meta-analysis. Data Sources Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anti–IL-12/23 (ustekinumab and briakinumab) agents and anti–tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) agents (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) used in treating CPP were reviewed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Ovid MEDLINE from database inception to May 2011. The results of registered nonpublished completed studies were procured through abstract publications or poster presentations. Study Selection Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, monotherapy studies (with safety outcome data for MACE) of IL-12/23 antibodies and anti–TNF-α agents in adults. Studies of psoriatic arthritis were excluded. Data Extraction Two investigators independently searched data while 6 investigators reviewed the abstracted data. Results A total of 22 RCTs comprising 10 183 patients met the predefined inclusion criteria. The primary outcome measure was MACE, a composite end point of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, or cardiovascular death during the placebo-controlled phase of treatment in patients receiving at least 1 dose of study agent or placebo. Absolute risk differences were used as an effect measure. There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity across the studies using the I 2 statistic (I 2 = 0), allowing for combination of trial results using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects method. During the placebo-controlled phases of the anti–IL-12/23 studies, 10 of 3179 patients receiving anti–IL-12/23 therapies experienced MACEs compared with zero events in 1474 patients receiving placebo (Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, 0.012 events/person-year; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.001 to 0.026; P =.12). In the anti–TNF-α trials, only 1 of 3858 patients receiving anti–TNF-α agents experienced a MACE compared with 1 of 1812 patients receiving placebo (Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, −0.0005 events/person-year; 95% CI, −0.010 to 0.009; P = .94). Conclusions Compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in the rate of MACEs observed in patients receiving anti–IL-12/IL-23 antibodies or anti–TNF-α treatments. This study may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.

Background: This study compares the risk of acute myocardial infarction among patients exposed to etodolac, naproxen, celecoxib, and rofecoxib. Methods: A retrospective cohort study in 38 258 veteran patients (26 376 patient-years) measured the adjusted odds ratios of acute myocardial infarction during exposure to etodolac, naproxen, celecoxib, or rofecoxib. Results: Diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction was confirmed in 100 patients who were exposed to a study nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Compared to naproxen, the increased risk of acute myocardial infarction was not significant for etodolac (OR = 1.32, P = .27), whereas celecoxib (OR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.09-4.35, P = .03) and rofecoxib (OR = 2.16, 95 CI 1.04-4.46, P = .04) were significant. A post hoc analysis indicates that patients with a prior history of acute myocardial infarction had a significant, 4.26-fold risk for another acute myocardial infarction if taking celecoxib or rofecoxib. Conclusion: Etodolac is not associated with a statistically increased risk of acute myocardial infarction compared to naproxen.

In men with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the confounding effect of adverse cardiovascular risk profile on the independent association of RA disease activity score (DAS) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) continues to be debated. The aim was to analyze the association of RA DAS with MACEs in a prospective cohort of men with RA enrolled in the VARA Registry at the Dallas site from January 2003 to October 2006. All subjects met American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA. All events were obtained by reviewing patient clinical data. DAS was categorized as low, 0 to 3.2; moderate, 3.2 to 5.09; and high, > or =5.1. Of 282 men (mean age 66 +/- 11.1 years), 231 had valid DASs (150, low; 60, moderate; and 21, high DAS) and were followed up for 4.4 +/- 2 years. Ninety-two subjects (32.6%; 95% confidence interval 27 to 38) experienced an MACE, a composite end point of death (9 patients; 10%), acute coronary syndrome (38 patients; 42%), coronary revascularization (47 patients; 49%), new-onset heart failure (37 patients; 40%), and stroke (15 patients; 16%). DAS was a significant predictor of MACEs (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 1.6, p = 0.01) independent of traditional risk factors. Compared with patients with low or moderate DASs, patients with high DASs had a lower mean event-free period (35 and 30 vs 19 years, respectively; p = 0.03). In conclusion, in a population of male US veterans aged >50 years, (1) patients with RA were at high risk of MACEs, and (2) RA DAS was a significant predictor of MACEs independent of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of new onset or worsening congestive heart failure in Veteran's Affairs (VA) patients who have received infliximab, etanercept, or adalimumab, and to compare mortality rates in these patients to control populations. We enrolled three groups of patients for this retrospective study: TNF-alpha group (n = 103), a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) control group (n = 100), and a control group without RA (n = 100). All patients at our VA facility who had received at least one dose of the TNF-alpha antagonists were included in the TNF-alpha group. Admissions for CHF did not differ between the three groups: TNF-alpha 7 (6.7%), RA control 8 (8%), non-RA control 7 (7%); P = 0.940. Mortality rates were not significantly different: TNF-alpha 4 (3.8%), RA control 7 (7%), non-RA control 11 (11%); P = 0.147. Our study showed no difference between the three groups in either CHF exacerbation or mortality.

Background & Aims: Etodolac is a generic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Previous in vitro studies have shown that etodolac is a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 with selectivity in between that of other COX-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib and rofecoxib. However, there are no outcomes data assessing clinically significant upper gastrointestinal (CSUGI) events with etodolac. Methods: A historical cohort study was performed at the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center in which 16,286 veteran patients (5596 patient-years) received etodolac or naproxen during a 3-year period without concurrent use of other ulcerogenic drugs other than low-dose aspirin. The primary outcome was the CSUGI event rate of the etodolac and naproxen groups without concomitant low-dose aspirin. Results: The incidence of CSUGI events was .78% and .24% for naproxen and etodolac, respectively. In the NSAID-naive subset, the incidence of CSUGI events was .99% and .24% for naproxen and etodolac, respectively. Compared with naproxen, etodolac was associated with a reduction in upper gastrointestinal events, corresponding to an odds ratio of .39 (95% confidence interval, .20–.76; P = .006). Concomitantly used low-dose aspirin increased event rates with naproxen 2-fold and etodolac 9-fold. Hence, there was no significant difference in gastrointestinal event rates between etodolac and naproxen when low-dose aspirin was taken concomitantly. Conclusions: Etodolac is a generic COX-2 selective inhibitor that reduces CSUGI events compared with the nonselective NSAID naproxen. However, concomitant use of low-dose aspirin negates the gastrointestinal safety advantages of etodolac.

This Update summarizes studies published in 2013 that the authors consider highly relevant to the practice of rheumatology. Topics include osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis,...