Search

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe the adult rheumatology workforce in the United States, assess change in rheumatology providers over time, and identify variation in rheumatology practice characteristics.MethodsUsing national Medicare claims data from 2006 to 2020, clinically active rheumatology physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) were identified. Each calendar year was used for inclusion, exclusion, and analysis, and providers were determined to be entering, exiting, or stable based upon presence or absence in the prior or subsequent years of data. Characteristics (age, gender, practice type, rural, and region) of rheumatologists were determined for 2019 and in mutually exclusive study periods from 2009 to 2011, 2012 to 2015, and 2016 to 2019. The location of rheumatology practice was determined by billing tax identification and mapped. Demographics of physicians exiting or entering the rheumatology workforce were compared separately to those stable by logistic regression.ResultsThe clinically active adult rheumatology workforce identified in US Medicare in 2019 was 5,667 rheumatologists and 379 APPs. From 2009 to 2020, the number of rheumatologists increased 23% and the number of APPs increased 141%. There was an increase in female rheumatologists over time, rising to 43% in 2019. Women and those employed by a health care system were more likely to exit, and those in a small practice or in the South were less likely to exit.ConclusionThe overall number of clinically active rheumatology providers grew more than 20% over the last decade to a high of 6,036 in 2020, although this rate of growth appears to be flattening off in later years.

ObjectiveTo provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).MethodsThis guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsThis guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.ConclusionApplication of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.

The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic resulted in major disruptions to medical care. We aimed to understand changes in outpatient care delivery and use of telemedicine in U.S. rheumatology practices during this period. Rheumatology Informatics System Effectiveness (RISE) is a national, EHR-enabled registry that passively collects data on all patients seen by participating practices. Included practices were required to have been participating in RISE from January 2019 through August 2020 (N = 213). We compared total visit counts and telemedicine visits during March-August 2020 to March-August 2019 and stratified by locations in states with shelter-in-place (SIP) orders. We assessed characteristics of patients within each practice, including primary rheumatic diagnosis and disease activity scores, where available. We included 213 practices with 945,160 patients. Overall, we found visit counts decreased by 10.9% (from 1,302,455 to 1,161,051) between March and August 2020 compared to 2019; this drop was most dramatic during the month of April (- 22.3%). Telemedicine visits increased from 0% to a mean of 12.1%. Practices in SIP states had more dramatic decreases in visits, (11.5% vs. 5.3%). We found no major differences in primary diagnoses or disease activity across the two periods. We detected a meaningful decrease in rheumatology visits in March-August 2020 during the SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic compared to the year prior with a concomitant increase in the use of telemedicine. Future work should address possible adverse consequences to patient outcomes due to decreased contact with clinicians.

ObjectiveIt is unclear if biosimilars of biologics for inflammatory arthritis are realizing their promise to increase competition and improve accessibility. This study evaluates biosimilar tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) utilization across rheumatology practices in the United States and compares whether patients initiating biosimilars remain on these treatments at least as long as new initiators of bio-originators.MethodsWe identified a cohort of patients initiating a TNFi biosimilar between January 2017 and September 2018 from an electronic health record registry containing data from 218 rheumatology practices and over 1 million rheumatology patients in the United States. We also identified a cohort of patients who initiated the bio-originator TNFi during the same period. We calculated the proportion of biosimilar prescriptions compared with other TNFi's and compared persistence on these therapies, adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses codes, and insurance type.ResultsWe identified 909 patients prescribed the biosimilar infliximab-dyyb, the only biosimilar prescribed, and 4413 patients with a new prescription for the bio-originator infliximab. Biosimilar patients tended to be older, have a diagnosis code for rheumatoid arthritis, and covered by Medicare insurance. Over the study period, biosimilar prescriptions reached a maximum of 3.5% of all TNFi prescriptions. Patients persisted on the biosimilar at least as long as the bio-originator infliximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, P = 0.07).ConclusionThe uptake of biosimilars in the United States remains low despite persistence on infliximab-dyyb being similar to the infliximab bio-originator. These results add to clinical studies that should provide greater confidence to patients and physicians regarding biosimilar use.

Objectives To assess the impact of baseline RF level on drug concentrations and efficacy of certolizumab pegol [CZP; TNF inhibitor (TNFi) without a crystallizable fragment (Fc)] and adalimumab (ADA; Fc-containing TNFi) in patients with RA. Methods The phase 4 EXXELERATE study (NCT01500278) was a 104-week, randomized, single-blind (double-blind until week 12; investigator-blind thereafter), head-to-head study of CZP vs ADA in patients with RA. In this post hoc analysis, we report drug concentration and efficacy outcomes stratified by baseline RF quartile (≤Q3 or >Q3). Results Baseline data by RF quartiles were available for 453 CZP-randomized and 454 ADA-randomized patients (≤Q3: ≤204 IU/ml; >Q3: >204 IU/ml). From week 12, the area under the curve (AUC) of ADA concentration was lower in patients with RF >204 IU/ml vs patients with RF ≤204 IU/ml; the AUC of CZP concentration was similar in patients with RF ≤204 IU/ml and >204 IU/ml. For patients with RF ≤204 IU/ml, disease activity score (DAS28)-CRP was similar between CZP- and ADA-treated patients through week 104. For patients with RF >204 IU/ml, mean DAS28-CRP was lower in CZP- vs ADA-treated patients at week 104. The proportion of patients with RF >204 IU/ml achieving DAS28-CRP low disease activity at week 104 was greater in CZP- vs ADA-treated patients. Conclusion CZP was associated with maintained drug concentration and efficacy in patients with RA and high RF and may therefore be a more suitable therapeutic option than TNFis with an Fc fragment in these patients. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01500278 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Many guidelines recommend limiting glucocorticoids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but 40% of patients remain on glucocorticoids long term. We evaluated the cardiovascular risk of long‐term glucocorticoid prescription by studying patients on stable disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methods: Using two claims databases, we identified patients with RA on stable DMARD therapy for >180 days. Proportional hazards models with inverse‐probability weights and clustering to account for multiple observations were used to estimate the effect of glucocorticoid dose on composite cardiovascular outcomes (stroke or myocardial infarction [MI]). Results: There were 135,583 patients in Medicare and 39,272 in Optum's de‐identified Clinformatics Data Mart (CDM) database. Medicare and CDM patients had an incidence of 1.3 and 0.8 composite cardiovascular outcomes per 100 person‐years, respectively. In the older, comorbid Medicare cohort, glucocorticoids were associated with a dose‐dependent increase in composite cardiovascular outcomes in adjusted models with predicted one‐year incidence of 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2%–1.6%) for ≤5 mg, 1.6% (95% CI 1.4%–1.9%) for >5 to 10 mg, and 1.8% (95% CI 1.2%–2.5%) for >10 mg versus 1.1% (95% CI 1.1%–1.2%) among patients not receiving glucocorticoids. There was no significant association among the CDM cohort. However, in the subgroup of younger patients with RA and higher cardiovascular risk, glucocorticoids were associated with a dose‐dependent increase in composite cardiovascular outcomes. Conclusion: Among older patients with more comorbidities and younger patients with higher cardiovascular risk with RA on stable DMARD therapy, glucocorticoids were associated with a dose‐dependent increased risk of MI and stroke, even at doses ≤5 mg/day. By contrast, no association was noted among younger, healthier patients with RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Few studies have reported the agreement between medication information derived from ambulatory EHR data compared to administrative claims for high‐cost specialty drugs. We used data from a national EHR‐enabled registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), with linked Medicare claims in a population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to investigate variations in agreement for different biologic disease‐modifying agents (bDMARDs) between two data sources (RISE EHR data vs. Medicare claims), categorized by drug, route of administration, and patient insurance factors (dual eligibility). Methods: Patients ≥ 65 years old, with ≥ 2 visits in RISE with RA ICD codes ≥ 30 days apart, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts B and D in 2017–2018 were included. We classified patients as bDMARD users or nonusers in Medicare claims or EHR data in 2018, and we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV), and negative predicted value (NPV) of EHR data for identifying bDMARD users, using Medicare as the reference standard. We also calculated these metrics after stratifying by clinic‐administered (Part B) versus. pharmacy‐dispensed (Part D) bDMARDs and by patient dual‐eligibility. Results: A total of 26 097 patients were included in the study. Using Medicare claims as the reference standard, EHR data had a sensitivity of 75.0%–90.8% for identifying patients with the same medication and route. PPV for Part B bDMARDs was higher compared with Part D bDMARDs (range 94.3%–97.3% vs. 51.0%–69.6%). We observed higher PPVs for Part D bDMARDs among patients who were dual‐eligible (range 82.4%–95.1%). Conclusion: The risk of misclassification of drug exposure based on EHR data sources alone is small for Medicare Part B bDMARDs but could be as high as 50% for Part D bDMARDs, in particular for patients who are not dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to ascertain pegloticase persistence and adverse events associated with concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment in patients with gout. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with gout using the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry from January 2016 through June 2020. The first pegloticase infusion defined the index date. Based on concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment, we identified three exposure groups: (1) immunomodulatory drug initiators (patients initiating an immunomodulatory prescription ±60 days from the index date), (2) prevalent immunomodulatory drug recipients (patients receiving their first immunomodulatory drug prescription >60 days before the index date with at least one prescription within ±60 days of the index date), and (3) immunomodulatory nonrecipients (patients receiving pegloticase without concomitant immunomodulatory drugs). We calculated the proportion of patients who achieved serum urate levels ≤6 mg/dL and who had laboratory abnormalities (white blood cell count <3.4 x 109/L, platelet count <135,000, hematocrit level <30%, alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase level ≥1.5 times the upper limit normal value) within 180 days after the index date. Cox regression analyzed time to pegloticase discontinuation, controlling for potential confounders. Results: We identified 700 pegloticase recipients (91 immunomodulatory drug initiators, 33 prevalent immunomodulatory drug recipients, and 576 nonrecipients), with a median follow‐up of 14 months. Immunomodulatory drug recipients were less likely to discontinue pegloticase. The adjusted hazard ratios of pegloticase discontinuation associated with concomitant immunomodulatory drug initiation and prevalent treatment were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.75) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.42–1.16), respectively. Laboratory abnormalities were uncommon (<5%) and were not higher in concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment. Conclusion: Consistent with clinical trials, results from this large observational registry suggest that concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment improves pegloticase persistence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Quality of care (QoC) delivery in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) continues to suffer from various challenges (eg, delay in diagnosis and referral) that can lead to poor patient outcomes. This study aimed to identify good practice interventions that address these challenges in RA care in North America. Methods: The study was conducted in three steps: (1) literature review of existing publications and guidelines (April 2005 to April 2021) on QoC in RA; (2) in‐person visits to >50 individual specialists and health care professionals across nine rheumatology centers in the United States and Canada to identify challenges in RA care and any corresponding good practice interventions; and (3) collation and organization of findings of the two previous methods by commonalities to identify key good practice interventions, followed by further review by RA experts to ensure key challenges and gaps in RA care were captured. Results: Several challenges and eight good practice interventions were identified in RA care. The interventions were prioritized based on the perceived positive impact on the challenges in care and ease of implementation. High‐priority interventions included the use of technology to improve care, streamlining specialist treatment, and facilitating comorbidity assessment and care. Other interventions included enabling patient access to optimal medication regimens and improving patient self‐management strategies. Conclusion: Learnings from the study can be implemented in other rheumatology centers throughout North America to improve RA care. Although the study was completed before the COVID‐19 pandemic, the findings remain relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]