Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21953645›Full record

ArticleArthritis and rheumatism2012

Prescribing practices in a US cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients before and after publication of the American College of Rheumatology treatment recommendations.

Leslie R Harrold, J Timothy Harrington, Jeffrey R Curtis, Daniel E Furst, Mary Jane Bentley, Ying Shan, George Reed, Joel Kremer, Jeffrey D Greenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthritis and rheumatism, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Leslie R HarroldUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, USA. Leslie.Harrold@umassmed.edu
J Timothy Harrington
Jeffrey R Curtis
Daniel E Furst
Mary Jane Bentley
Ying Shan
George Reed
Joel Kremer
Jeffrey D Greenberg

Funding

Ethnic Differences in the Risk of Fracture and Vascular DiseaseK23AR053351 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI CURTIS, JEFFREY R. · 2007 to 2011
$755k
Prognostic Genetic Biomarkers in Rheumatoid ArthritisK23AR054412 · NIAMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI GREENBERG, JEFFREY D · 2007 to 2011
$665k
Assessing and Improving Arthritis Medication Adherence: Gout as a ModelK23AR053856 · NIAMS · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI HARROLD, LESLIE R · 2007 to 2011
$641k
NIAMS NIH HHS AR-053351NIAMS NIH HHS AR-053856NIAMS NIH HHS AR-054412NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR053351NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR053856NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR054412
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine prescribing practices in the use of biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), before and after publication of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) treatment recommendations.

methodsBiologics-naive RA patients under the care of a rheumatologist in the US were identified from the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America registry. Patients were included if their visits occurred prior to and/or at least 6 months after publication of the ACR treatment recommendations (time periods of February 2002-June 2008 versus December 2008-December 2009). The population was divided into 2 mutually exclusive cohorts: 1) methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy users, and 2) multiple nonbiologic DMARD users. Initiation or dose escalation of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs in response to active disease was assessed cross-sectionally and longitudinally in comparison to the ACR recommendations. The impact of the publication of the ACR recommendations on treatment practices was assessed using logistic regression, stratified by disease activity and adjusted for clustering of physicians and geographic region.

resultsAfter 1 visit, 24-37% of patients receiving MTX monotherapy who had moderate disease activity and a poor prognosis or high disease activity received care consistent with the ACR recommendations; after 2 visits, 34-56% of the MTX monotherapy group received care consistent with the recommendations. In the patients receiving multiple nonbiologic DMARDs, 31-47% of those with moderate or high disease activity received care consistent with the recommendations after 1 visit, and 43-51% received such care after 2 visits. Publication of the recommendations did not significantly change treatment patterns for those with active disease.

conclusionSubstantial numbers of RA patients with active disease did not receive care consistent with the current ACR treatment recommendations. Innovative approaches to improve care are necessary.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareAgedAntibodies, MonoclonalAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidCohort StudiesDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleGuidelines as TopicHealth StatusHumansJointsMaleMethotrexateMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareAntibodies, MonoclonalAntirheumatic AgentsMethotrexate

Identifiers

PMID21953645
PMCPMC3253907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.