Search

Objectives: We sought to evaluate perceptions of biosimilar products among US rheumatologists who prescribe TNF-α inhibitors, given that 10 TNF-α inhibitor biosimilars and two rituximab biosimilars have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval., Methods: A 19-question self-administered online survey was conducted from 6 May to 1 June 2019, and fielded by WebMD, LLC. Rheumatologists (n = 9050) who were members of Medscape.com and its partner panels were invited to participate. Likert and other rating scales were used to collect responses, which were summarized descriptively., Results: Responses were obtained from 320 board-certified US rheumatologists, 85% of whom were fellows of the ACR. Nearly all respondents were familiar with the FDA definition of a biosimilar product and were aware that an infliximab biosimilar was FDA approved; fewer realized that adalimumab, etanercept and rituximab biosimilars were also FDA approved. Most respondents (84%) were aware that an approved biosimilar was not automatically deemed interchangeable by the FDA. Rheumatologists were more likely to initiate biosimilar treatment for a biologic treatment-naïve patient with RA (73%) than they were to switch to the biosimilar for a patient with RA doing well on the reference product (35%)., Conclusions: The results of this survey suggest that US rheumatologists have a good understanding and acceptance of biosimilar products, particularly for the initiation of treatment in biologic-naïve individuals. They were hesitant to switch from a reference product to a biosimilar for a patient doing well on the reference product. Additional education on biosimilars is required to help inform treatment decisions by rheumatologists. A plain language summary of this article has been uploaded as supplementary material, available at Rheumatology online., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

There is a paucity of succinct measures of physician satisfaction. As part of a Performance Improvement Project, we developed and piloted a simple questionnaire to determine rheumatologists satisfaction.Thirty 5 rheumatologists in the academic or private setting were sent opened-ended questions to determine the factors that made them satisfied or dissatisfied with respect to their rheumatology practice. From the responses we formed 14 questions 1 to 10 scale centering on satisfaction and dissatisfaction that was piloted in 30 rheumatologists and subsequently validated in 173 rheumatologists within the US and Latin America.Our combined sample included 173 rheumatologists (55 English and 118 Spanish-speaking respondents). The mean satisfaction for the combined sample was 6.92 (standard deviation=1.1, range 4.08-9.62). The strongest contributors to physician satisfaction were "Seeing interesting and challenging cases" (8.6 ± 1.5) and "The ability to make a difference in patient's life" as well as "Establishing long term relationship with patients" (8.39 ± 1.5). The strongest contributors to physician dissatisfaction were "Getting inappropriate referrals not in the scope of practice" (4.3 ± 2.13) and "Time spent on documentation" (4.5 ± 2.59). The scale had good reliability, relatively normal distribution, and little or no redundancy among items.A simple and practical questionnaire to measure physician satisfaction, in particular rheumatologists satisfaction, was developed, piloted and successfully validated on a predominately academic sample of rheumatologists within the US and Latin America. This scale will serve as a means to identifying potential barriers to the implementation of performance improvement projects in the practice of Rheumatology.

Objective: There continues to be a debate about the value and purpose of maintenance of certification (MOC) programs in the US. The goal of this study is to assess the impact, value, and purpose of MOC programs in rheumatology., Methods: A survey was sent to 3,107 rheumatologists in the US. The survey addressed how rheumatologists perceive the value and impact of MOC programs on rheumatology practice and patient care., Results: A total of 515 rheumatologists completed this survey. The majority (74.8%) believed there was no significant value in MOC, beyond what is already achieved from continuing medical education. Most rheumatologists did not believe MOC was valuable in improving patient care (63.5%), and the majority felt that the primary reason for creating MOC was either the financial well-being of board-certifying organizations (43.4%) or to satisfy administrative requirements in health systems (30%). Although 65.6% perceived that staying current with new medical knowledge was a positive impact of MOC programs, the MOC was perceived to result in time away from providing patient care (74.6%) and time away from family (74%). When asked about potential effects of requiring MOC, 77.7% reported physician burnout, 67.4% early physician retirement, and 63.9% anticipated an effect on reducing the overall number of practicing rheumatologists., Conclusion: The majority of rheumatologists do not believe there is significant value for MOC programs. There is evidence for lack of trust in board-certifying organizations, and rheumatologists believe MOC programs contribute to physician burnout, early retirement, and loss in the rheumatology workforce., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: The perceived bother of skin and joint-related manifestations of psoriatic disease may differ among patients, rheumatologists, and dermatologists. This study identified and compared the patient and dermatologist/rheumatologist-perceived bother of psoriatic disease manifestations., Methods: Online surveys were administered to patients with both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and to dermatologists and rheumatologists. Object-case best-worst scaling was used to identify the most and least bothersome items from a set of five items in a series of questions. Each item set was drawn from 20 items describing psoriatic disease skin and joint symptoms and impacts on daily activities. Survey responses were analyzed using random-parameters logit models for each surveyed group, yielding a relative-bother weight (RBW) for each item compared with joint pain, soreness, or tenderness., Results: Surveys were completed by 200 patients, 150 dermatologists, and 150 rheumatologists. Patients and physicians agreed that joint pain, soreness, and tenderness are among the most bothersome manifestations of psoriatic disease (RBW 1.00). For patients, painful, inflamed, or broken skin (RBW 1.03) was more bothersome, while both rheumatologists and dermatologists considered painful skin much less bothersome (RBW 0.17 and 0.22, respectively) than joint pain. Relative to joint pain, rheumatologists were more likely to perceive other joint symptoms as bothersome, while dermatologists were more likely to perceive other skin symptoms as bothersome., Conclusions: This study has identified important areas of discordance both between patients and physicians and between rheumatologists and dermatologists about the relative bother of a comprehensive set of psoriatic disease symptoms and functional impacts. Both physician specialists should ask patients which manifestations of psoriatic disease are most bothersome to them, as these discussions may have important implications for drug and other patient management options.

Objective: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing a treat-to-target approach versus usual care in a US-based cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients., Methods: In this behavioral intervention trial, rheumatology practices were cluster-randomized to provide treat-to-target care or usual care. Eligible patients with moderate/high disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score >10) were followed for 12 months. Both treat-to-target and usual care patients were seen every 3 months. Treat-to-target providers were to have monthly visits with treatment acceleration at a minimum of every 3 months in patients with CDAI score >10; additional visits and treatment acceleration were at the discretion of usual care providers and patients. Coprimary end points were feasibility, assessed by rate of treatment acceleration conditional on CDAI score >10, and achievement of low disease activity (LDA; CDAI score ≤10) by an intent-to-treat analysis., Results: A total of 14 practice sites per study arm were included (246 patients receiving treat-to-target and 286 receiving usual care). The groups had similar baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Rates of treatment acceleration (treat-to-target 47% versus usual care 50%; odds ratio [OR] 0.92 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.64, 1.34]) and achievement of LDA (treat-to-target 57% versus usual care 55%; OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.60, 1.84]) were similar between groups. Treat-to-target providers reported patient reluctance and medication lag time as common barriers to treatment acceleration., Conclusion: This study is the first to examine the feasibility and efficacy of a treat-to-target approach in typical US rheumatology practice. Treat-to-target care was not associated with increased likelihood of treatment acceleration or achievement of LDA, and barriers to treatment acceleration were identified., (© 2017, The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: The aim of our study was to examine why real-world practices and attitudes regarding quantitative measurements of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have received limited attention., Methods: An e-mail survey asked US rheumatologists to self-report on their use of quantitative measurements (metric)., Results: Among 439 respondents, metric rheumatologists (58%) were more likely to be in group practice and to use tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. The quantitative tools most commonly used were the Health Assessment Questionnaire (35.5%) and the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (27.1%). Reasons for not measuring included time needed and electronic availability. Based on simulated case scenarios, providing more quantitative information increased the likelihood that a patient would change to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or biologic., Conclusion: Routine use of quantitative measurement for patients in the United States with RA is increasing over time but remains low.