The complexity of care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: metrics for better understanding chronic disease care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) provide an important opportunity for understanding care of patients with a serious chronic condition. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize the complexity of care for patients with RA, including metrics describing the patient, the disease, and use of the health care system across time and place. METHODS: We undertook a prospective cohort study of 568 community-dwelling patients with RA by using observational data from clinically detailed telephone interviews at baseline and 2 years later in addition to medical record abstraction. Health status, comorbidity, use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, visits, providers, provider types, encounter settings, and the discontinuity between patients and providers were studied. RESULTS: Within a 12-month window, 568 patients had 8686 outpatient encounters with the health care system with a mean of 3.41 unique providers per patient associated with a mean of 5 primary care and 6 rheumatologist visits. Half did not see a primary care physician, and 20% did not see a rheumatologist during 6-month periods despite their use of potentially toxic drugs, a mean of 4 comorbidities and progressive RA. Over the course of 24 months, 29% of patients changed their primary care provider, and 15% changed their rheumatologist. Patients were moderately impaired with mean SF-12 physical component score 37 (SD, 9). CONCLUSION: Patients with RA have frequent encounters with multiple providers and also frequent discontinuity of care. Recognizing the complexity of the care of patients with a chronic disease across multiple dimensions provides an opportunity to better understand challenges and opportunities in delivering high quality care.

Dating the "window of therapeutic opportunity" in early rheumatoid arthritis: accuracy of patient recall of arthritis symptom onset.

OBJECTIVE: A "window of therapeutic opportunity" has been hypothesized to be present in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To determine the date of this window, we must know the symptom-onset date of the RA. Patients participating in an observational study of early aggressive rheumatoid factor (RF) positive RA were evaluated to assess the accuracy of their recall of symptom-onset date by comparing the onset date they reported at the first visit with that reported on subsequent 6-monthly questionnaires. METHODS: One hundred eighty-six patients with early RA (at entry: median disease duration 5.8 mo, mean RF 413.8 +/- 630.7 IU/ml, 20.6 +/- 10.9 swollen and 23.7 +/- 13.4 tender joints) completed a self-reported mailed questionnaire every 6 months for up to 5 years. As a part of each questionnaire, patients were asked to recall their RA symptom-onset date. These dates were then compared to the dates reported on the initial questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirteen months after symptom onset (i.e., about 6 mo after study entry) 61% of patients recalled the symptom-onset date (within 1 mo) that they had reported at baseline; the proportion decreased to 39% at 31 months and 25% after 70 months. During this period, the proportion overestimating RA duration remained about 20%, but the proportion underestimating it increased from 23% at 13 months to 39% at 31 months, and to 50% after 56 months. Patients with longer disease duration, less disease activity, and higher pain levels tended to be less accurate. CONCLUSION: Accuracy of recall of RA symptom-onset date by patients tends to decline over a period of 5 years. This should be taken into consideration when enrolling patients, when interpreting the findings of early RA clinical trials, and when attempting to ascertain the presence of a window of therapeutic opportunity.

Development and evaluation of a patient self-report case-finding method for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and evaluation of a patient self-report case-finding method for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not dependent on direct contact with the treating physicians. METHODS: The American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA diagnosis were adapted for patient self-report using a questionnaire, and alternative scoring algorithms were evaluated to balance case-finding sensitivity and specificity. Positive rheumatoid factor tests were used to identify 1053 individuals in 2 large healthcare organizations; 440 agreed to receive study materials. Case-finding results were validated by medical record review (MRR) for a random sample of 90 patients. Three scoring algorithms were compared with MRR for likelihood of RA diagnosis. Cases not classifiable by algorithm were flagged and reviewed by 2 expert physicians for likelihood of RA diagnosis. RESULTS: Pilot testing demonstrated that patients comprehended the questionnaire and were willing to answer the questions. Completed questionnaires were returned by 265 (60%) of the 440 patients contacted. Following expert physician review of 16 flagged cases in the 90-patient MRR subsample, the most accurate scoring algorithm demonstrated 80% sensitivity, 67% specificity, 74% accuracy, and 77% positive predictive value for detecting early RA. CONCLUSION: The case-finding method represents a promising tool for identifying RA patients, with potential application in research and quality-assurance activities. RELEVANCE: This case-finding method should be useful in research and quality-assurance efforts requiring identification of RA patients treated by all types of providers in healthcare organizations in which centralized laboratory data are available.

Case finding for population-based studies of rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of patient self-reported ACR criteria-based algorithms to physician-implicit review for diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interrater reliability of rheumatologist diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the concordance between rheumatologist and computer algorithms for assessing the accuracy of a diagnosis of RA. METHODS: Self-reported data regarding symptoms and signs for a diagnosis of RA were considered by a panel of rheumatologists and by computer algorithms to assess the probability of a diagnosis of RA for 90 patients. The rheumatologists' review was validated through medical record. RESULTS: The interrater reliability among rheumatologists regarding a diagnosis of RA was 84%; the chance-corrected agreement (kappa) was 0.66. Agreement between the rheumatologists' rating and the best-performing algorithm was 95%. Using rheumatologist's review as a standard, the sensitivity of the algorithm was 100%, specificity was 88%, and the positive predictive value was 91%. The validation of rheumatologist's review by medical record showed 81% sensitivity, 60% specificity, and 78% positive predictive value. CONCLUSION: Reliability of rheumatologists' assignment of a diagnosis of RA by using self-report data is good. Algorithms defining symptoms as either joint swelling or tenderness with symptom duration >or=4 weeks have a better agreement with rheumatologist's diagnosis than do ones relying on a longer symptom duration. RELEVANCE: These findings have important implications for health services research and quality improvement interventions pertinent to case finding for RA through self-report data.

Classifying structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis as progressive or nonprogressive using a composite definition of joint radiographic change: a preliminary proposal.

OBJECTIVE: To categorize radiographic joint damage as progressive or nonprogressive in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) participating in clinical studies. METHODS: Using the total Sharp radiographic damage score, erosion score, and joint space narrowing (JSN) score for 751 serial films of the hand/wrist and forefoot obtained from 190 patients with early RA during 6-60 months of followup (mean 31 months), various threshold values for progression of joint damage were evaluated singly and in various combinations. For each patient, the progression rate was estimated from the linear regression line for all available radiographic time points. After preliminary screening, 23 candidate definitions were tested to select a definition that discriminated well between radiographic progression and radiographic nonprogression. RESULTS: The definition selected describes radiographic nonprogression in individual patients as an increase of < or =0.1 in the standardized response mean of the trimmed population (the central 95% of patients) for > or =5 of 6 change measures (erosion scores and JSN scores for the fingers, wrists, and feet). Using this definition, 59% of the 190 patients with early RA were defined as having nonprogressive radiographic damage. Moreover, 95% of 95 patients with progression of the total Sharp score at or below the median and 24% of 95 patients with progression of the total Sharp score above the median were defined as having nonprogressive joint damage (chi(2) = 98, P < 0.0001), as were 97% of patients in the lowest quintile of total Sharp score progression rates and none of the patients in the highest progression quintile. Patients defined as nonprogressors had significantly lower baseline levels of C-reactive protein and lower erythrocyte sedimentation rates compared with patients defined as progressors, and those patients in the nonprogressive joint damage group more frequently had American College of Rheumatology 20% and 50% improvement criteria responses, "good" improvements (decrease of > or =1.2) in the Disease Activity Score, and > or =50% decreases in the swollen joint counts during the first 2 years of followup. CONCLUSION: RA joint damage in an observational cohort can be classified as progressive or nonprogressive with the use of a composite definition. Validation and/or refinement of this definition is needed by utilizing the data from controlled clinical trials that compare placebo with active treatment.

Etanercept added to background methotrexate therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: continued observations.

OBJECTIVE: To observe the long-term safety and efficacy of combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to determine whether the addition of etanercept allowed reductions in methotrexate or corticosteroid dosages while maintaining a clinical response. METHODS: Patients with RA who received methotrexate plus etanercept in a previous randomized, placebo-controlled trial were offered the opportunity to enroll in an open-label extension study for further evaluation of treatment with etanercept and methotrexate. RESULTS: Seventy-nine of the 89 patients in the original blinded study enrolled in the extension study, and 65 of these patients continue in the study. Patients have received etanercept therapy for up to 47 months (median 44 months). The types and rate of adverse events noted during the extension trial were similar to those observed in the controlled trial. At the 3-year assessment, 77% of the 57 patients available for evaluation met American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) criteria for improvement in RA, 47% met the ACR50 criteria, and 23% met the ACR70 criteria. Of the 36 patients assessed at 3 years in the extension study, 30 (83%) were able to decrease their dosages of corticosteroids, and 20 (56%) were able to discontinue corticosteroid therapy. At 3 years, the dosage of methotrexate was decreased in 41 of 66 patients (62%), and methotrexate therapy was discontinued in 19 patients (29%). CONCLUSION: In this observational continuation study, the addition of etanercept to background methotrexate provided sustained clinical benefit over a median period of 44 months. With etanercept therapy, there were trends toward dosage reduction or discontinuation of methotrexate and corticosteroids, without apparent worsening of ACR response rates. Compared with the controlled trial, no increases in the rate of adverse events were observed.

Correlation of single time-point damage scores with observed progression of radiographic damage during the first 6 years of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Aggressive treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is recommended to prevent irreversible joint damage. We evaluated the usefulness of single time-point joint radiographs for deciding whether early RA is erosive or nonerosive. METHODS: In an observational study, 179 patients with recent onset of RA symptoms (median 5.1 mo), positive rheumatoid factor, and active polyarthritis had 2 to 8 radiographic observations of hands, wrists, and forefeet during 6 to 60 months of followup. Linear regression lines for all available radiographs were used to determine progression rates of total Sharp score (TSS), erosion score (ES), and joint space narrowing score (JSNS) of each patient. RESULTS: Using the average of 2 readers' scores, intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.97 and smallest detectable difference was 3.07 for ES, 0.93 and 7.52 for JSNS, and 0.90 and 12.71 for TSS. Mean progression rates per year were 1.20 (ES), 0.67 (JSNS), and 1.85 (TSS). Single time-point radiographs taken within 6 months of symptom onset did not correlate with progression rates (r = 0.01 to 0.07); between 7 and 18 months correlations were weak (r = 0.23 to 0.35), but were better for ES between 19 and 72 months (r = 0.60 to 0.81). Among 53 patients (31%) with no progression of TSS, only 10 of them had zero scores at baseline. Among all 630 radiographs with TSS > or = 1, 25% were associated with progression rates < or = 0. CONCLUSION: Erosion scores of single radiographic examinations done > 18 months after onset of RA symptoms correlated with progression rates, but earlier radiographs did not sufficiently predict erosive or nonerosive status to guide disease modifying antirheumatic drug treatment decisions.

Autoantibodies in early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis, before and during disease modifying antirheumatic drug treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Autoantibodies observed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during clinical trials of immunomodulating agents may cause concern about possible induction of autoimmunity by the therapeutic intervention. We determined the frequency and variability of selected autoantibodies in patients with early rheumatoid factor (RF) positive RA during a prospective observational study. METHOD: The study cohort consisted of 276 patients with active RA and with RF > or = 40 IU, who were enrolled between January 1, 1993, and April 1, 2000, before starting disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy (average duration of symptoms, 7 mo). During an average of 3.5 years followup, a panel of autoantibodies was determined at entry, 6 months, 12 months, and yearly thereafter, in addition to routine clinical, radiographic, and laboratory assessments. After enrollment, patients were treated with DMARD at the discretion of their rheumatologists. RESULTS: At entry before any DMARD therapy, antinuclear antibody (ANA; by HEp-2) values were negative in 31%, borderline (8 IU/ml) in 26%, and > 8 (mean 65.5 IU/ml) in 41%. Tender and swollen joint counts, Disease Activity Score, and RF values were significantly higher in those with ANA > 8. During followup 726 paired serial specimens were available; 12.5% changed from negative to positive ANA and 12.3% from positive to negative. Additional autoantibodies were present in specimens of 20% of the subjects; 8% had 2 and 1.4% had 3 other autoantibodies. Anti-dsDNA was detected in 13 (5.5%) patients; 4 changed from negative to positive and one from positive to negative. SSA IgG and SSB IgG autoantibodies were both present in one of these patients. Ribosomal P protein autoantibodies were noted in 2 other patients, but Sm (Smith) and uRNP/snRNP IgG autoantibodies were not present in any patient. No patient had a diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus. Antithyroid peroxidase (20 patients), parietal cell (15), smooth muscle (14), reticulin (9), mitochondrial (5), striational (2), SSB (2) and SCL-70 (1) autoantibodies were detected in some specimens. Seven patients were diagnosed with hypothyroidism, one with chronic thyroiditis, one with hepatitis C, and 9 with malignancies. CONCLUSION: In patients with early RF positive RA the frequent occurrence of autoantibodies before and during treatment with standard DMARD may make it difficult to attribute their presence to new therapies.