Search

Objectives: We aimed to estimate what proportion of people with SLE attending UK rheumatology clinics would be categorized as being at high risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and therefore asked to shield, and explore what implications this has for rheumatology clinical practice., Methods: We used data from the British Society for Rheumatology multicentre audit of SLE, which included a large, representative cross-sectional sample of patients attending UK Rheumatology clinics with SLE. We calculated who would receive shielding advice using the British Society for Rheumatology's risk stratification guidance and accompanying scoring grid, and assessed whether ethnicity and history of nephritis were over-represented in the shielding group., Results: The audit included 1003 patients from 51 centres across all 4 nations of the UK. Overall 344 (34.3%) patients had a shielding score ≥3 and would have been advised to shield. People with previous or current LN were 2.6 (1.9-3.4) times more likely to be in the shielding group than people with no previous LN (P < 0.001). Ethnicity was not evenly distributed between the groups (chi-squared P < 0.001). Compared with White people, people of Black ethnicity were 1.9 (1.3-2.8) and Asian 1.9 (1.3-2.7) times more likely to be in the shielding group. Increased risk persisted after controlling for LN., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the large number of people with SLE who are likely to be shielding. Implications for clinical practice include considering communication across language and cultural differences, and ways to conduct renal assessment including urinalysis, during telephone and video consultations for patients who are shielding., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Enormous progress has been made in the field of rheumatology in the past several decades, historically led by publicly funded academic innovators but in more recent times with much greater involvement of the pharmaceutical industry. This shift in resources has created a complex new model for reinvestment in the medical community in which the vast majority of private funds are redirected towards influencing the prescription behaviour of practitioners through 'key opinion leaders', with the main purpose of enhancing and perpetuating profit rather than innovation and critical thinking, and often at the expense of partnerships with scientists (that is, basic and translational researchers) and academic collaborations. This new episteme brings multiple opportunities to rethink approaches to sustaining long-term critical research in the field, ultimately maximizing the return on investment: scientific knowledge for the benefit of patients and society. Central to such strategies should be the rebalancing of academia-industry partnerships towards academic research and the involvement of 'innovation and knowledge leaders', rather than mostly key opinion leaders.

Objective: Glucocorticoids are common in RA management despite an unfavorable, exposure-dependent risk profile impacted by patient and provider-level factors. Existing work describing glucocorticoid use in RA is not generalizable and does not adequately examine provider factors. We aim to describe how providers prescribe glucocorticoids to commercially insured, newly diagnosed RA patients in the United States., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study which used the national Optum© administrative database. We identified 9221 adults ages 18-65 with RA diagnosed 2010-2014. We assessed glucocorticoid dispensing 3 months pre-diagnosis through 12months post-diagnosis ("study period"), cumulatively stratified by calendar quarter and prescriber specialty (rheumatologist, primary care, other). We examined prescribing variation among individual rheumatologists by dividing quarterly distribution of per-patient dose and days' supply into quartiles., Results: 6717 (72.8%) patients filled ≥1 glucocorticoid prescription during the study period. 2890 (31.3%) patients received ≥3 months' supply, with median (IQR) daily dose 10 (6.6) mg/day and days' supply 189 (143) days. 52.6% of patients received glucocorticoids 1-3 months post-diagnosis; 29.2% received glucocorticoids 10-12 months post-diagnosis. Among glucocorticoid users post-diagnosis, quarterly median daily dose and days' supply were consistently ≥10 mg/day and ≥30 days, respectively. Rheumatologists prescribed most glucocorticoids, with median per-quarter daily dose and days' supply 10 mg/day and 43-60 days. Individual rheumatologists' prescribing varied widely across all quarters., Conclusion: Among commercially insured incident RA patients, receipt of ≥10 mg/day prednisone equivalent for months is common, typically prescribed by rheumatologists, and persists a year post-diagnosis in 29.2% of patients. Glucocorticoid prescribing varies widely across rheumatologists. Further work is warranted to identify provider factors explaining variation in glucocorticoid prescribing, and assess how these affect health outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Children with discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) are at risk for disfigurement and progression to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Consensus is lacking regarding optimal care for children with DLE., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare practice patterns among paediatric dermatologists/rheumatologists treating paediatric DLE., Methods: An online survey was sent to 292 paediatric rheumatologists in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and 200 paediatric dermatologists in the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement., Results: Survey response rates were 38% (76 of 200) for dermatology and 21% (60 of 292) for rheumatology. Both specialties agreed that screening labs should include complete blood counts with differential, urinalysis, complement levels, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, antinuclear antibody and other autoantibodies, hepatic function and renal function/electrolytes. Both specialties agreed that arthritis or nephritis should prompt intensified evaluation for SLE. No other patient features achieved consensus as disease-modifying risk factors. Hydroxychloroquine was agreed upon as first-line systemic therapy, but consensus was lacking for second- or third-line treatment., Conclusions: We found few areas of consensus and significant practice differences between paediatric dermatologists and rheumatologists treating DLE. Knowledge gaps include risk factors for SLE, optimal screening and treatment of refractory skin disease., (© 2019 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Objective: To investigate healthcare professionals' knowledge and attitudes towards infliximab and insulin glargine biosimilars and the factors influencing their prescribing. Then, to compare healthcare professionals' attitudes with the utilisation of these biosimilars in UK hospitals., Design: Self-administered, one-time web-based survey and drug utilisation analysis., Setting and Data Sources: Professional associations and societies in the field of dermatology, diabetology, gastroenterology and rheumatology in the UK, between 8 August 2016 and 8 January 2017. The volume of utilisation of branded and biosimilar infliximab and insulin glargine in UK hospitals was derived from the DEFINE database, between 2015 and 2016., Outcomes: Participants' knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and factors influencing their use and corresponding usage of infliximab and insulin glargine biosimilars., Results: Responses were obtained from 234 healthcare professionals across dermatology, diabetology, gastroenterology and rheumatology specialties. 75% of respondents were aware that biosimilars were available on their local formulary. 77% of respondents considered biosimilars extremely or very important to save costs for the NHS. Gastroenterologists had the highest utilisation of infliximab biosimilars (14%) in 2015 rising to (62%) in 2016. Healthcare professionals had greater concerns about safety and efficacy when switching patients to biosimilars than when starting biosimilars in biological naïve patients. Guidance from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and robust pharmacovigilance studies on biosimilars were both considered important factors in increasing biosimilars use., Conclusion: British healthcare professionals are well informed about biosimilars with high level of awareness. Safety and efficacy concerns were higher in switching than in initiating biosimilars among some prescribers. It is probable that personal experience of biologics as well as discipline-specific guidance influenced prescribers' responses., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Factors associated with care concordant with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are unknown., Methods: We identified a national cohort of biologic-naive patients with RA with visits between December 2008 and February 2013. Treatment acceleration (initiation or dose escalation of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs) in response to moderate to high disease activity (using the Clinical Disease Activity Index) was assessed. The population was divided into two subcohorts: (1) methotrexate (MTX)-only users and (2) multiple nonbiologic DMARD users. In both subcohorts, we compared the characteristics of patients who received care consistent with the ACR recommendations (e.g., prescriptions for treatment acceleration) and their providers with the characteristics of those who did not at the conclusion of one visit and over two visits, using logistic regression and adjusting for clustering of patients by rheumatologist., Results: Our study included 741 MTX monotherapy and 995 multiple nonbiologic DMARD users cared for by 139 providers. Only 36.2 % of MTX monotherapy users and 39.6 % of multiple nonbiologic DMARD users received care consistent with the recommendations after one visit, which increased over two visits to 78.3 % and 76.2 %, respectively (25-30 % achieved low disease activity by the second visit without DMARD acceleration). Increasing time since the ACR publication on RA treatment recommendations was not associated with improved adherence., Conclusions: Allowing two encounters for treatment acceleration was associated with an increase in care concordant with the recommendations; however, time since publication was not.

Background: Available literature on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) demonstrates a tremendous burden of disease and suggests underdiagnosis and undertreatment., Objective: To obtain real-world physician perspectives on the impact of psoriasis and PsA and its treatment on patients' daily lives, including perceptions of, and satisfaction with, current therapies., Methods: The Multinational Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (MAPP) surveyed dermatologists (n = 391) and rheumatologists (n = 390) in North America (Canada and the United States) and Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom)., Results: Dermatologists classified 20.3% and 25.7% of their patients as having severe psoriasis and severe PsA respectively; rheumatologists indicated that 48.4% of their PsA patients had active disease. Of the psoriasis patients complaining of joint pain, only 33.0% had a diagnosis of PsA. An impact on daily activities or social/emotional well-being was recognized by 57.2% to 79.3% of physicians. In patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, dermatologists reported 74.9% were receiving topical therapy, 19.5% conventional oral therapy and 19.6% biologics. Dermatologists and rheumatologists reported similar rates of topical (≈45%) and biologic (≈30%) therapy utilization for their PsA patients; conventional oral therapy was more often prescribed by rheumatologists (63.4%) vs. dermatologists (35.2%). Reasons for not initiating or maintaining systemic therapies were related to concerns about long-term safety, tolerability, efficacy and costs (biologics)., Conclusion: Physicians in North America and Europe caring for patients with psoriasis and PsA acknowledge unmet treatment needs, largely concerning long-term safety/tolerability and efficacy of currently available therapies; evidence suggests underdiagnosis of PsA and undertreatment of psoriasis among dermatologists., (© 2015 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: The introduction of biological drugs involved a fundamental change in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The extent to which biological drugs are prescribed to RA patients in different regions in Sweden varies greatly. Previous research has indicated that differences in health care practice at the regional level might obscure differences at the individual level. The objective of this study is to explore what influences individual rheumatologists' decisions when prescribing biological drugs., Method: Semi-structured interviews, utilizing closed- and open-ended questions, were conducted with senior rheumatologists, selected through a mix of random and purposive sampling. The interview questions consisted of two parts, with a "parallel mixed method" approach. In the first and main part, open-ended exploratory questions were posed about factors influencing prescription. In the second part, the rheumatologists were asked to rate predefined factors that might influence their prescription decisions. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a conceptual framework for data collection and analysis., Results: Twenty-six rheumatologists were interviewed. A constellation of various factors and their interaction influenced rheumatologists' prescribing decisions, including the individual rheumatologist's experiences and perceptions of the evidence, the structure of the department including responsibility for costs, peer pressure, political and administrative influences, and participation in clinical trials. The patient as an actor emerged as an important factor. Hence, factors both at organizational and individual levels influenced the prescribing of biological drugs. The factors should not be seen as individual influences but were described as influencing prescription in an interactive, nonlinear way., Conclusions: Potential factors explaining differences in prescription practice are experience and perception of the evidence on the individual level and the structure of the department and participation in clinical trials on the organizational level. The influence of patient attitudes and preferences and interpretation of scientific evidence seemed to be somewhat contradictory in the qualitative responses as compared to the quantitative rating, and this needs further exploration. An implication of the present study is that in addition to scientific knowledge, attempts to influence prescription behavior need to be multifactorial and account for interactions of factors between different actors.

Objectives: To describe disease characteristics and treatment modalities in a multidisciplinary cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients in Switzerland., Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of 255 patients included in the Swiss SLE Cohort and coming from centres specialised in Clinical Immunology, Internal Medicine, Nephrology and Rheumatology. Clinical data were collected with a standardised form. Disease activity was assessed using the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment-SLE Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI), an integer physician's global assessment score (PGA) ranging from 0 (inactive) to 3 (very active disease) and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). The relationship between SLE treatment and activity was assessed by propensity score methods using a mixed-effect logistic regression with a random effect on the contributing centre., Results: Of the 255 patients, 82% were women and 82% were of European ancestry. The mean age at enrolment was 44.8 years and the median SLE duration was 5.2 years. Patients from Rheumatology had a significantly later disease onset. Renal disease was reported in 44% of patients. PGA showed active disease in 49% of patients, median SLEDAI was 4 and median ESR was 14 millimetre/first hour. Prescription rates of anti-malarial drugs ranged from 3% by nephrologists to 76% by rheumatologists. Patients regularly using anti-malarial drugs had significantly lower SELENA-SLEDAI scores and ESR values., Conclusion: In our cohort, patients in Rheumatology had a significantly later SLE onset than those in Nephrology. Anti-malarial drugs were mostly prescribed by rheumatologists and internists and less frequently by nephrologists, and appeared to be associated with less active SLE.

Objective: The most rapidly growing population of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is under the age of 65. The objective of our study was to gain insight into the factors influencing physicians' recommendations for persons in this age group with moderate osteoarthritis (OA)., Methods: Rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons attending national meetings were asked to complete a survey including a standardized scenario of a 62-year-old person with knee OA who has moderate knee pain limiting strenuous activity despite medical management. We used an experimental 2 × 2 × 2 design to examine the effects of sex, employment status, and severity of radiographic OA on physicians' recommendations. Each physician was asked to rate a single scenario., Results: The percentage of physicians recommending TKA varied from 30% to 55% for scenarios describing a patient with mild radiographic OA, and from 39% to 71% for scenarios describing a patient with moderate radiographic OA. Surgeons were less likely to recommend TKA for women compared to men of the same age, employment status, symptom severity, and functional status, and radiographs. Rheumatologists practicing in academic settings were more likely to recommend TKA compared to those practicing in nonacademic settings, and American surgeons were more likely to recommend TKA compared to their European counterparts., Conclusion: Orthopedic surgeons and rheumatologists vary significantly in their recommendations for patients with moderate knee pain and functional limitations. Both patient and physician characteristics influence physicians' recommendations, and rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons display different patterns of decision making.

Objective: To evaluate the current management of gout in general practitioners and specialists in Buenos Aires city., Material and Methods: multiple choice, anonimous, survey, performed to 33 rheumatologists (REU), 52 Internal Medicine specialists (EMI) and 86 general practitioners (Otros)., Results: Gout is a very common or usual disease for 51.5% of REU vs 11.5% EMI and 8.1% Otros. At diagnosis, uric acid crystals are identified by 51.5% REU vs 28.8% EMI and 26.7% Otros and tophi observed by 60.6% REU vs 30.8% EMI and 30.2% Otros. REU and EMI should indicate colchicine for acute gout in 75.8% and 80.8% respectively vs 7.7% of Otros. REU measure patient's height/weight and waist circumference less frequently than EMI (66.7% vs 92.3% and 45.5% vs 75% respectively)., Conclusions: REU usually examine patients with gout but in a chronic stage. The identification of crystals in synovial fluid is low. The use ofcolchicine is still high. REU should improve the evaluation of the metabolic syndrome., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.)

There is no consensus regarding indications for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in hip osteoarthritis (OA). Patients can be referred to surgeons either by a general practitioner (GP) or a rheumatologist. The aim of this study was to determine whether patients referred to orthopedic surgeons by GP and rheumatologists differed. GPs and rheumatologists were asked to include one patient suffering from hip OA for whom a consultation with a surgeon was planned to determine if THA was indicated. Surgeons' decisions were obtained by follow-up questionnaires. Univariate and then multivariate statistical analysis evaluated differences between patients referred by GPs and those referred by rheumatologists. A total of 558 patients were included. THA was prescribed in 71.6 % of patients referred by rheumatologists vs. 57.6 % of patients referred by GPs (p = 0.008). Patients referred by rheumatologists were younger (66.3 vs. 69.3 years; p = 0.006), less frequently retired (72.9 vs. 84.2 %; p = 0.007), and presented with a higher New Zealand score (54.3 vs. 48.1; p = 0.0009). On multivariate analysis, the variables related to patients referred by rheumatologists were the SF-12 mental score, the New Zealand score, and the surgeon's decision. Patients consulting a surgeon to discuss THA were more likely to be operated on when referred by a rheumatologist, which might be due to differences in the rheumatologists' and GPs' opinions on the right time to perform surgery or due to differences in the populations followed by rheumatologists and GPs, those followed by rheumatologists being younger, more active, more urban, with a greater willingness to undergo surgery.

Objective: To describe practice patterns for care of Canadian patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis., Design: Online survey of a consumer panel., Setting: Participants were drawn from a population-wide Canadian consumer database., Participants: To be eligible to participate, respondents had to have been diagnosed with plaque psoriasis within the past 5 years, and to have had body surface area involvement of 3% or greater in the past 5 years, or to have psoriasis on a sensitive area of the body (hands, feet, scalp, face, or genitals), or to be currently receiving treatment with systemic agents or phototherapy for psoriasis., Main Outcome Measures: Proportion of respondents with psoriasis managed by FPs and other specialists, psoriasis therapies, comorbidities, and patient satisfaction., Results: Invitations were sent to 3845 panelists with self-reported psoriasis, of which 514 qualified to complete the survey. Family physicians were reported to be the primary providers for diagnosis and ongoing care of psoriasis in all provinces except Quebec. Overall physician care was reported to be satisfactory by 62% of respondents. Most respondents receiving over-the-counter therapies (55%) or prescribed topical therapies (61%) reported that their psoriasis was managed by FPs. Respondents receiving prescription oral or injectable medications or phototherapy were mainly managed by dermatologists (42%, 74%, and 71% of respondents, respectively). Ongoing management of respondents with body surface area involvement of 10% or greater was mainly split between dermatologists (47%) and FPs (45%), compared with rheumatologists (4%) or other health care professionals (4%). Of those respondents receiving medications for concomitant health conditions, treatment for high blood pressure was most common (92%), followed by treatment for heart disease (75%) and elevated cholesterol and lipid levels (68%)., Conclusion: Patient-reported practice patterns for the diagnosis and management of moderate to severe psoriasis vary among provinces and in primary and secondary care settings.

To determine how much of variability in physician opinion about the indications for knee arthroplasty is due to inconsistency in individual physicians' opinions. We surveyed 201 orthopedic surgeons, 141 rheumatologists, and 455 family physicians. Physicians were asked how 34 patient characteristics affected their decision to perform or refer for knee arthroplasty. Surgeons and referring physicians agreed on how 4 and 2 of 34 patient characteristics affected their decision about knee arthroplasty, respectively. Half of the variability in opinion among physicians could be accounted for by inconsistency in their individual responses to the survey 6 weeks apart (mean intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.49). Although surgeons and referring physicians vary in their opinion, half of the variability could be attributed to individual physician inconsistency., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: the aim of this study was to give an update on outpatient healthcare structures in rheumatology in Germany., Methods: a survey among the members of the German Association of Rheumatologists was carried out via a self-developed questionnaire, followed by a detailed descriptive and explorative statistical analysis. Contents of the questionnaire focussed on data concerning the practice, structure of the patients with regard to different indications and therapies, structure and quality of healthcare services provided, quality assurance and the economic situation of the practice as well as a subjective assessment of the outpatient healthcare environment. This approach is similar to the first survey conducted in 2005., Results: compared to the findings from the first survey in 2005 no significant changes could be found in many areas. As this may intuitively sound disappointing it must be stated that high positive levels maintained in some areas, which cannot be taken for granted, can also be counted as success. With respect to the structure of services provided and medical therapies, a further upward trend could be observed. Topics which were assessed for the first time dealt with communication with healthcare insurers and teaching of rheumatology as a discipline in hospitals., Conclusions: rheumatologists in Germany offer a broad spectrum of different services and actively make use of quality assurance measures in the daily practice. The communication with general practitioners and the training of new rheumatologists in the future remain an area of concern and need to be addressed.

Background: Myofascial pain is a common dysfunction with a lifetime prevalence affecting up to 85% of the general population. Current guidelines for the management of myofascial pain are not available. In this study we investigated how physicians on the basis of prescription behaviour evaluate the effectiveness of treatment options in their management of myofascial pain., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, nationwide survey with a standardized questionnaire among 332 physicians (79.8% male, 25.6% female, 47.5 +/- 9.6 years) experienced in treating patients with myofascial pain. Recruitment of physicians took place at three German meetings of pain therapists, rheumatologists and orthopaedists, respectively. Physicians estimated the prevalence of myofascial pain amongst patients in their practices, stated what treatments they used routinely and then rated the perceived treatment effectiveness on a six-point scale (with 1 being excellent). Data are expressed as mean +/- standard deviation., Results: The estimated overall prevalence of active myofascial trigger points is 46.1 +/- 27.4%. Frequently prescribed treatments are analgesics, mainly metamizol/paracetamol (91.6%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/coxibs (87.0%) or weak opioids (81.8%), and physical therapies, mainly manual therapy (81.1%), TENS (72.9%) or acupuncture (60.2%). Overall effectiveness ratings for analgesics (2.9 +/- 0.7) and physical therapies were moderate (2.5 +/- 0.8). Effectiveness ratings of the various treatment options between specialities were widely variant. 54.3% of all physicians characterized the available treatment options as insufficient., Conclusions: Myofascial pain was estimated a prevalent condition. Despite a variety of commonly prescribed treatments, the moderate effectiveness ratings and the frequent characterizations of the available treatments as insufficient suggest an urgent need for clinical research to establish evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome.

Fewer United States rheumatologists perform or utilize musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) than those in Europe, though this disparity is narrowing. To document perceptions and use of MSUS in the U.S. rheumatology community, we sent an anonymous electronic survey to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) physicians and tailored versions to fellows and program directors. A separately-conducted survey was sent to a smaller group of rheumatologists already utilizing MSUS. Acknowledging survey bias, we found that 20% of rheumatologists and fellows who responded are utilizing MSUS, and those using it primarily do so for diagnosis and injection guidance. Many rheumatologists across the country think that ultrasound should become a standard tool in rheumatology training, practice, and research. Despite an inherent survey bias likely overstating interest in MSUS, this study is valuable as the first to document this trend among U.S. rheumatologists.

Background: The aim of this study was to explore, among Dutch rheumatologists, aspects such as attitude towards guidelines, pharmacotherapy and information needs in the treatment of pregnant as well as non-pregnant rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients., Methods: Fifteen rheumatologists from nine different hospitals were interviewed by means of a semi-structured interview. Questions addressing attitude towards guidelines, pharmacotherapy preferences and information needs with respect to the pregnant and non-pregnant patient were asked. The analysis will be based on descriptive statistics., Results: Guidelines are used by almost half of the hospitals with respect to pregnant RA patients and by all hospitals for RA patients in general. With respect to pregnant women, nine respondents preferred stopping the medication as soon pregnancy is known. When treating RA patients, in general sulfasalazine and methotrexate would be drugs of first choice. Information is found in international and national books and guidelines., Conclusion: Dutch rheumatologists are of the view that there is sufficient information on the treatment of RA in pregnant women or women wishing to become pregnant, except for safe use of medication during pregnancy. In the future, pregnancy risk categorization should be updated and discussed regularly. This should be based on more recent literature and experience. A good monitoring system for following all young patients with a rheumatic disease should be set up as a first step to collect more information on the safe use of medication during pregnancy.

Objective: To characterize variations in initial treatment for knee monoarthritis in the oligoarthritis subtype of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (OJIA) by pediatric rheumatologists and to identify patient, physician, and practice-specific characteristics that are associated with treatment decisions., Methods: We mailed a 32-item questionnaire to pediatric rheumatologists in the United States and Canada (n = 201). This questionnaire contained clinical vignettes describing recent-onset chronic monoarthritis of the knee and assessed physicians' treatment preferences, perceptions of the effectiveness and disadvantages of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) and intraarticular corticosteroid injections (IACI), proficiency with IACI, and demographic and office characteristics., Results: One hundred twenty-nine (64%) questionnaires were completed and returned. Eighty-three percent of respondents were board certified pediatric rheumatologists. Respondents' treatment strategies for uncomplicated knee monoarthritis were broadly categorized: initial IACI at presentation (27%), initial NSAID with contingent IACI (63%), and initial NSAID with contingent methotrexate or sulfasalazine (without IACI) (10%). Significant independent predictors for initial IACI were believing that IACI is more effective than NSAID, having performed > 10 IACI in a single patient at one time, and initiating methotrexate via the subcutaneous route for OJIA. Predictors for not recommending initial or contingent IACI were believing that the infection risk of IACI is significant and lacking comfort with performing IACI., Conclusion: There is considerable variation in pediatric rheumatologists' initial treatment strategies for knee monoarthritis in OJIA. This variation is primarily associated with perceptions of medication effectiveness and proficiency with IACI. Further studies are warranted to clarify the optimal treatment of OJIA.

Aims: To determine the current local practice of managing scleroderma (SSc) patients, in particular screening of SSc-related lung disease in a tertiary rheumatology centre., Methods: SSc patients were identified from our inpatient (July 1999 till June 2004) and outpatient (January 2002 till June 2004) databases. Patient demographics and relevant investigations performed to monitor for pulmonary, renal, and cardiac complications related to SSc were sought from computerised clinical and laboratory records., Results: Nine of the 39 (23%) limited SSc (lcSSc) patients and 5 of the 10 (50%) diffuse SSc (dcSSc) patients had lung involvement. A higher proportion of diffuse SSc patients had investigations for SSc lung disease compared to the lcSSc group (90% vs 67% had pulmonary function tests and 70% vs 56% had high resolution chest CT scans respectively). About half of the patients in both groups had echocardiographs (50% lcSSc vs 46% dcSSc) for assessment of pulmonary arterial hypertension., Conclusion: SSc lung disease has been generally poorly screened in our cohort of patients with SSc. Limited SSc patients were not screened as rigorously as dcSSc patients for SSc lung disease. In large part, this was because of the lack of availability of treatments in New Zealand when the lung disease was identified. The generation of a standardised screening and monitoring protocol may help identify patients with progressive lung disease so that early treatment could be considered as this becomes more readily available.

Objective: To determine methotrexate (MTX) use and the degree to which Canadian pediatric rheumatologists adhere to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on monitoring for MTX toxicity., Methods: A 20-item questionnaire was e-mailed to 37 pediatric rheumatologists in 17 centers in Canada. A total of 28 (75.7%) responded., Results: The oral route (PO) of administration was preferred initially by 78.6% in most cases, but for more severe cases, this fell to 42.8%. Those who chose not to start PO used the subcutaneous route (SQ). When PO was initial treatment, a switch to SQ was undertaken because of dose escalation, lack of efficacy, or GI toxicity. An initial mean dose of 0.35-0.5 mg/kg/wk was prescribed by 51.8%. For 75%, the maximum dose was 1 mg/kg/wk (up to 25 mg). Complete blood count, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were determined by 100% at baseline and in followup; albumin and creatinine by 85.7% at baseline, but by only 71.4% and 67.8%, respectively, in followup. After a change in dose, 96.3% requested blood tests at least monthly; this was extended to every 6 to 8 weeks by 78.6% when the dose was stable. Side effects of recurrent nausea and/or vomiting were reported to occur frequently. No severe toxicity, and in particular no case of cirrhosis, was reported. Prophylactic folate supplementation was prescribed by almost all physicians., Conclusion: Most Canadian pediatric rheumatologists follow ACR guidelines to monitor for MTX toxicity in children with rheumatic diseases who were prescribed MTX. The variation in monitoring and response to toxicity raises the question whether specific pediatric guidelines should be developed.

Objective: There is considerable debate regarding the role of the rheumatologist ultrasonographer and how this development will impact on musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) performed by radiologists. We compared the MSUS practices of a rheumatologist and a radiologist working within the same National Health Service Trust., Methods: A retrospective review of MSUS reports of consecutive scans performed by a consultant rheumatologist with a special interest in MSUS and a consultant musculoskeletal radiologist. Reports were analysed for referring specialties, indications for MSUS, joint regions scanned, MSUS findings, frequency with which patients were referred for injection and how often injection was performed., Results: A total of 170 patients were referred to the rheumatologist for MSUS of 282 joint regions (91% referred by rheumatologists). Of those, 84 (49%) patients had MSUS examination of more than one joint region, with up to five regions scanned per sitting. One hundred patients were referred to the radiologist for MSUS of 111 joint regions (49% referred by orthopaedic surgeons). The most frequently requested primary indication for MSUS performed by the rheumatologist was detection of synovitis [74 (44%) patients] while MSUS performed by the radiologist was most frequently for assessment for major structural changes [44 (44%) patients]. The rheumatologist performed MSUS-guided injection in 59 of 170 (35%) patients scanned and the radiologist in 13 of 100 (13%)., Conclusion: MSUS performed by the rheumatologist was predominantly requested by rheumatologists to aid diagnosis of synovial and tendon inflammation and to guide injections, while MSUS performed by the radiologist was predominantly requested by orthopaedic surgeons to aid diagnosis of structural pathology. Curriculums in MSUS designed for rheumatologists may need to place appropriate emphasis on the identification of synovial and tendon inflammation, and injection guidance.

Background: This study was designed to determine rheumatologists' self-reported knowledge, perceptions of legitimacy, referral patterns, and use in practice of 22 complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies., Methods: A survey was mailed to a random sample of 2000 physician members of the American College of Rheumatology asking respondents which (if any) CAM therapies they (1) knew enough about to discuss with patients, (2) considered part of "legitimate medical practice," and (3) "personally administered" to patients, or "referred patients to someone else" to administer. The response rate was 47%., Results: On average, the respondents reported knowing enough to discuss 10 of the therapies with patients, considered 9 to be part of legitimate medical practice, and had referred patients to someone else for 8 of the 22 therapies. Correlates of use and/or referral included sex, age, belief in the legitimacy of the therapies, and self-reported knowledge., Conclusions: These results provide potentially important preliminary data regarding rheumatologists' responses to dramatic increases in the use of CAM therapies among their patients.

Objective: To describe practice variation in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) among German rheumatologists with regard to drug and non-drug therapy., Methods: We used data of 7,326 patients with RA registered in a national German rheumatological database in 1998. In the database, every patient with an inflammatory rheumatic disease seen at one of the German Collaborative Arthritis Centres is registered once a year with a standard clinical data form and a patient questionnaire. We compared health care provided by 29 rheumatological outpatient units. For drug and non-drug treatment unit prescription rates, ranges and outliers were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was used for case mix adjustment and for the identification of practice patterns., Results: We observed variation concerning the frequency of use of single disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). The median of the prescription rates in the 29 units for methotrexate (MTX) was 55% in 1998 (1st quartile: 51%, 3rd quartile: 63%); sulfasalazine had a median of 15% (quartiles: 10%/19%), antimalarials a median of 8% (quartiles: 5%/21%). Combination DMARD therapy was used in 11% (quartiles: 6%/18%). Prescriptions of low dose steroids (< or = 7.5 mg) had a median of 45% (quartiles: 35%/55%), and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) had a median prescription rate of 58% (quartiles: 50%/70%). High variation was also found concerning active physiotherapy (median: 41%; quartiles 34%/55%) and passive physical measures (median 14%, quartiles 9%/37%). Differences in case mix (age, sex, rheumatoid factor, disease duration, severity, disability) only explained a small proportion of the total variation. When the units were grouped according to the frequency of prescription of DMARD combination therapy, treatment patterns could be identified. Units with higher rates of DMARD combination therapy used more drugs for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, more active physiotherapy but fewer NSAID and fewer passive physical therapies., Conclusion: Variation in drug and non-drug treatment indicates significant differences in health care provision. Trends in the drug management of RA are adopted differentially by the members of the rheumatology community. The large variability in non-drug therapies may, apart from differences in availability, suggest a lack of agreement on therapeutic effectiveness.

Purpose: Previous studies have suggested that specialists may achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, albeit often at greater cost. We sought to compare outcomes of care and resource utilization among patients with shoulder or knee problems who were treated by general internists, rheumatologists, and orthopedic surgeons., Subjects and Methods: Outpatients with knee or shoulder complaints who were seen by general internists, rheumatologists, or orthopedic surgeons at an academic medical center were administered questionnaires at enrollment in the study and again 3 months later. The questionnaires included validated measures of satisfaction, functional status, and pain severity, as well as resource utilization. We compared baseline clinical characteristics, satisfaction with care, resource utilization, and changes in function and symptoms during 3 months of follow-up among patients who were cared for by the three different types of providers., Results: A total of 534 patients responded to the baseline survey and 436 (82%) to the 3-month follow-up survey. About 60% (n = 323) had knee pain. Orthopedists cared for 40% (n = 211) of the patients, with the remainder treated in approximately equal numbers by general internists or rheumatologists. At baseline, patients of internists had less severe pain (differences of 0.3 to 0.6 points on a 1 to 5 scale, P <0.05) and functional limitations (differences of 0.4 to 0.6 points on a 1 to 5 scale, P <0.0006) than patients of rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons. Adjusting for baseline differences, there were no significant differences among provider groups in pain relief or functional improvement during follow-up. However, in adjusted analyses, patients with shoulder pain who were cared for by orthopedic surgeons were least satisfied with the office environment [adjusted mean (+/- SD) satisfaction score of 1.6 +/- 0.8 on a 1 to 4 scale for orthopedic surgeons vs 1.3 +/- 0.8 for rheumatologists and 1.4 +/- 0.8 for internists, P = 0.004]. Among patients with knee pain, those treated by rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons were more satisfied with the doctor-patient interaction (adjusted mean satisfaction scores of 1.1 +/- 0.9 for rheumatologists and 1.2 +/- 0.7 for orthopedic surgeons on a 1 to 4 scale vs 1.4 +/- 0.8 for general internists, P = 0.003). Orthopedic surgeons obtained significantly more radiographs of the knee or shoulder and more magnetic resonance imaging scans of the knee. Rheumatologists performed significantly more aspirations or injection procedures. Among all patients, those treated by rheumatologists were most satisfied with the physician interaction, and those treated by orthopedic surgeons were most satisfied with treatment results., Conclusion: The relative benefits of specialist compared with generalist care for patients with knee or shoulder pain depend on the importance attached to resource utilization, patient satisfaction, and health outcomes.

Bone mineral density (BMD) performed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) has been used at our institution as a screening test for osteoporosis since 1986. Of 2789 bone densitometry tests done between 1992 and 1996 on women aged 51-75 years, 1743 (62.5%) were ordered by general internists (GIM), endocrinologists (ENDO), rheumatologists (RHEUM), and a metabolic bone disease specialist (MBDS). We compared the percentage of densitometry tests ordered by GIM, ENDO, RHEUM, and MBDS resulting in one of three possible diagnoses (normal, osteopenia, or osteoporosis). Applying the World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of normal (< 1 standard deviation [SD] below the mean for young, adult women), osteopenia (> or = 1 SD-< 2.5 SD below the mean), and osteoporosis (> or = 2.5 SD below the mean), we found that 34% of patients tested between 1992 and 1996 were osteoporotic, 42% were osteopenic, and 24% had normal bone density results. The rate of osteoporosis diagnosis was highest in the MBDS cohort (chi 2 = 9.19, p = 0.002) compared with patients in the other cohorts. To explore trends in management of this condition, a random sample of osteoporotic women aged 51-75 who had densitometry in 1996 (n = 82) was obtained. Review of medical records revealed that 73% were on some form of osteoporosis treatment (bisphosphonate, estrogen, or calcitonin, with or without calcium and vitamin D supplementation). Treatment rates differed significantly, however, by the ordering physician specialty (96% for MBDS, 63% for ENDO, 75% for RHEUM, and 53% for GIM, chi (2)3df = 11.37, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in selected clinical or demographic characteristics between patients treated by GIM and MBDS. This variation in treatment rates suggests that an opportunity to enhance primary care physicians' recognition and treatment of osteoporosis exists. Making osteoporosis management an educational focus may help narrow differences in practice and improve the effectiveness of a larger number of physicians treating patients with this problem.

Purpose: To examine rheumatology subspecialty practice patterns, determinants of referral to rheumatologists, and utilization of aspiration and injection procedures in a population-based sample of elderly individuals., Subjects and Methods: We obtained Medicare physician claims for all visits to rheumatologists among beneficiaries aged 65 years and older in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Virginia in 1993, and for visits to all providers by patients with coded diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We examined variations in visit frequency and aspiration/injection procedures, and we analyzed determinants of referral to a rheumatologist for RA or SLE., Results: In 1 year, 144,797 visits were made to rheumatologists by 38,443 patients in the three states. An inflammatory disorder was coded in 45% of visits and a noninflammatory disorder in 50%. Half of patients with RA were seen three or fewer times in the year. For RA and SLE, African Americans were about 60% as likely to be seen by a rheumatologist as whites. Utilization of rheumatologist services for rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus was highest in the state (Virginia) with the lowest per capita supply of rheumatologists. Among patients with bursitis, tendinitis, and osteoarthritis, African-American women were more likely to receive an injection or aspiration procedure than whites or African-American men., Conclusion: Elderly patients with rheumatologic disorders were seen by specialists less frequently than recommended by a recent rheumatology manpower survey. African-Americans with RA and SLE had fewer rheumatology visits than whites.

Objective: To compare influenza vaccination billing rates for patients seen by physiatrists with those of four other specialties: neurology, rheumatology, family practice, and internal medicine., Design: Retrospective cohort analysis using Medicare billing data., Patients: 234,164 Medicare outpatients seen in Washington state between September 1 and December 31, 1994., Results: Based on Medicare's billing data, only 6 of 99 physiatrists ordered vaccinations, and they immunized only 159 (6%) of the patients seen. An additional 1,109 (42%) patients seen by physiatrists were vaccinated by other physicians. Physiatric patients were less likely to have been vaccinated than those seen by internists, family practitioners, or rheumatologists (p < .002), but equally likely as those seen by neurologists (p = .07). A significantly smaller percentage of physiatrists ordered vaccinations than all other specialties (p < .04). Utilizing pre-existing survey data, the misclassification rate (those immunized but not billed) was estimated at 22% of our original cohort. Thus, approximately 800 patients, one third of those seeing physiatrists, may not have been immunized. We estimated the increase in hospitalization costs to be $117 per nonvaccinated patient (total >$90,000)., Conclusions: Missed opportunities for vaccination by physiatrists appear to be more frequent than in other specialties and have potentially large health and economic costs.

Objective: To assess the extent to which quantitative clinical measurement is performed by rheumatologists in the longitudinal followup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and fibromyalgia (FM) in routine outpatient practice in Canada., Methods: A cross sectional postal survey was conducted using an 18 item self-administered questionnaire sent to Canadian Rheumatology Association members., Results: Rheumatologists (response rate 85%) were more likely to longitudinally follow patients with RA and AS than those with OA or FM. There was a high degree of variability in the methods used to monitor patients longitudinally. Many measures used in clinical research were used infrequently in routine clinical practice. In general, the major health status measures surveyed were not used in clinical monitoring. There was a high level of agreement (>80%) that the characteristics required of an outcome measure for use in clinical practice should include simplicity, brevity, ease of scoring, reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change., Conclusion: The majority of Canadian rheumatologists perform outcome measurement during the longitudinal followup of their outpatients with RA, AS, OA, and FM. However, the process lacks standardization. High performance health status measures, developed for clinical research, have not been widely adopted in rheumatology practices. There is agreement on the characteristics required by Canadian rheumatologists for measurement procedures used in routine clinical care. Quantitative measurement in clinical practice using standardized procedures is an attainable, but as yet, unrealized opportunity.

Objective: To estimate the variation among rheumatologists in clinical outcomes and frequency of office visits for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), after accounting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics and treatments prescribed., Methods: Multiple regression analysis using random effects for rheumatologists and adjustments for patient characteristics and treatments received, based on data derived from a panel study of persons with RA., Results: During the years 1984-1993, rheumatologists accounted for a moderate amount of the total variation in clinical outcomes and nearly one-third of the total variation in frequency of office visits. For example, in 1993 rheumatologist associated variation in 4 clinical outcomes ranged from 16 to 25%, while the variation in office visit frequency attributable to rheumatologists stood at 46% of the total variation. However, rheumatologist associated variation in clinical outcomes was not statistically significant in any year, while variation in office visits was highly significant in all years (p < or = 0.0001). Although there was an increase in the percentage of variation attributable to rheumatologists for all outcomes examined across the years of this study, the time trend reached statistical significance only for frequency of office visits (2.4% per year; p = 0.0135) and functional status (1.6% per year; p = 0.0034)., Conclusion: The magnitude and strength of rheumatologist associated variation in frequency of office visits, without comparable strength in the variation in clinical outcomes, may suggest inefficiencies in the use of resources for the care of persons with RA. Further work is needed to directly examine the relationship between health outcomes and resource utilization.

Unlabelled: There is a paucity of epidemiological data on diagnostic and therapeutic practices in office practice patients with subacute or chronic pain in the thoracic or low back., Study Objective: to describe diagnostic and therapeutic strategies used in such patients., Patients and Methods: descriptive, prospective, two-month epidemiological study in 50 general practitioners and 50 rheumatologists. Each physician was asked to provide data on the demographics, clinical features, history of spinal disease, investigations, prior treatments and treatments prescribed on D0 and D30 in two patients with low back pain and two with thoracic back pain, of one to 12 months' duration., Results: A total of 352 patients were included. In the 217 patients with low back pain, including 107 women and 110 men, duration of the pain was 4.3 +/- 0.2 months and mean age was 49.6 +/- 1 years; 67% of these patients were economically active and 22% were retired; 59% were recruited by rheumatologists. In the thoracic back pain group, there were 135 patients, including 82 women (61%) and 53 men, with a mean duration of pain of 3.8 +/- 0.3 months and a mean age of 47.7 +/- 1.4 years; 60% were economically active and 22% were retired; 49% were recruited by rheumatologists. A history of conservatively-treated low or thoracic back pain was reported for 95.4% of patients in the low back pain group and 94% in the thoracic back pain group. Of the patients with low back pain, 6.3% had had spinal surgery. Investigations were as follows: roentgenograms in 85% of low back pain and 75% of thoracic back pain patients, computed tomography in 11% and 5.8%, magnetic resonance imaging in 2% and 1% and laboratory tests in 14% and 20%. Ninety-one per cent of low back pain and 84% of thoracic back pain patients were already under therapy on D0. Ninety-six per cent of patients overall were given a prescription at the end of the D0 visit, for a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug or an analgesic in 80% of low back pain and 63% of thoracic back pain patients, for muscle relaxants in 62% and 69%, for drugs aimed at preventing gastric side effects in 19% and 9.5%, for myotonic agents in 10% and 8% and for sedatives in 5% and 11%. A local steroid injection was given to 20% of low back pain patients. Twenty-four per cent of low back pain and 14% of thoracic back pain patients missed days of work (mean, 11 +/- 1.7 days and 13 +/- 4.6 days, respectively). Physical therapy was prescribed to 36% of low back pain and 27% of thoracic back pain patients and a lumbar support belt to 17% of low back pain patients. On D30, the pain had abated in 86% of low back pain and 89% of thoracic back pain patients and complete freedom from pain was reported by 28% and 32% of patients in these two groups, respectively. Treatments prescribed on D30 were physical therapy (43% and 31%), analgesics (40% and 36%) muscle relaxants (25% and 30%), and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (23% and 12%). Conclusion. This preliminary study provides data on common practices in subacute and chronic low back and back pain and may prove useful for health care cost estimations.

As part of a larger EURORITS' study of rheumatology practice across Europe an audit of the diagnoses of all rheumatology inpatients (IPs), all new (OP/N) and review (OP/R) outpatients, seen during the month of January 1991 was undertaken simultaneously in 30 rheumatology units in 19 European countries. Wide variations in case-mix, bed numbers and usage, as well as staffing levels were seen. This was in part due to the type of unit, some acting as national referral centres, while others performed a regional or district role, and also as a consequence of differences in referrals and in clinical practice. The 'median European unit' had four consultants, four trainees, two research fellows (clinical), and two research fellows (scientific), and admitted 66 patients to its 31 beds during the month. Inflammatory joint disease accounted for 60, 32 and 71% of IPs, OP/Ns and OP/Rs, respectively. This survey, being the first of its kind, has provided insight into the problems of eliciting and analysing such disparate data, which will be of value in future similar exercises.

Combinations of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been recently advocated. Efficacy and toxicity data are scant. We conducted a survey of Alabama rheumatologists to determine actual practice patterns regarding combined DMARD treatment for their patients with RA. No differences were found between academic and nonacademic rheumatologists nor between users and nonusers of combination DMARDs in demographics or practice pattern profiles. The majority did report use of combination DMARD treatment, though only in a small proportion of their patients for whom the pyramid approach had failed. The combination most often employed was gold salts and antimalarials. Users, as compared to nonusers, did favor changing the classic pyramid approach for the treatment of RA, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

The authors studied the characteristics of patients referred for rheumatology consultation in a group model HMO. Six hundred twelve patients were evaluated in 1986. The ages ranged from 3 to 85 years, with an average of 52 years. Female patients outnumbered male patients almost 3:1. Only 44% of referrals had a presumptive diagnosis and more than one half of these diagnoses were changed by the consulting rheumatology specialist, suggesting a high value added from the HMO rheumatologic consultation. Internists referred at a slightly higher rate than family practitioners, and pediatricians referred children at one tenth of the adult rate. Comparison with other published data on fee-for-service rheumatology practices indicates that in one group model HMO, which prohibits patient self-referral, rheumatologic specialists see a higher percentage of patients with vague or difficult-to-manage conditions such as the connective tissue diseases and fibromyalgia and a lower percentage of osteoarthritis and gout. This finding suggests that the structure and incentives of HMOs alter medical referral and practice patterns in significant ways.