MDedge Rheumatology

Key clinical point: Axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can be categorized as a distinct subtype of PsA because it exhibits clinical and radiological symptoms that are different from those of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis.

Major finding: Compared with patients with AS and psoriasis, patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B27-negative axial PsA had lesser inflammatory pain (P = .002), anterior uveitis (P = .014), and structural damage (P < .001) along with a higher prevalence of nail disease (P = .009) and were more likely to present with psoriasis before spondyloarthritis onset (P = .020). However, patients with HLA-B27-positive axial PsA vs AS and psoriasis reported lesser structural damage as revealed by Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index scores (P < .001).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 109 patients with axial PsA and 127 patients with AS and current presentation or a history of skin psoriasis from the REGISPONSER registry.

Disclosures: The REGISPONSER registry is funded by the Spanish Society for Rheumatology. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Michelena X et al. Characterising the axial phenotype of psoriatic arthritis: a study comparing axial psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis from the REGISPONSER registry. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002513 (Dec 5). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002513

Key clinical point: Axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can be categorized as a distinct subtype of PsA because it exhibits clinical and radiological symptoms that are different from those of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis.

Major finding: Compared with patients with AS and psoriasis, patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B27-negative axial PsA had lesser inflammatory pain (P = .002), anterior uveitis (P = .014), and structural damage (P < .001) along with a higher prevalence of nail disease (P = .009) and were more likely to present with psoriasis before spondyloarthritis onset (P = .020). However, patients with HLA-B27-positive axial PsA vs AS and psoriasis reported lesser structural damage as revealed by Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index scores (P < .001).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 109 patients with axial PsA and 127 patients with AS and current presentation or a history of skin psoriasis from the REGISPONSER registry.

Disclosures: The REGISPONSER registry is funded by the Spanish Society for Rheumatology. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Michelena X et al. Characterising the axial phenotype of psoriatic arthritis: a study comparing axial psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis from the REGISPONSER registry. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002513 (Dec 5). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002513

Key clinical point: Axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can be categorized as a distinct subtype of PsA because it exhibits clinical and radiological symptoms that are different from those of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis.

Major finding: Compared with patients with AS and psoriasis, patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B27-negative axial PsA had lesser inflammatory pain (P = .002), anterior uveitis (P = .014), and structural damage (P < .001) along with a higher prevalence of nail disease (P = .009) and were more likely to present with psoriasis before spondyloarthritis onset (P = .020). However, patients with HLA-B27-positive axial PsA vs AS and psoriasis reported lesser structural damage as revealed by Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index scores (P < .001).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 109 patients with axial PsA and 127 patients with AS and current presentation or a history of skin psoriasis from the REGISPONSER registry.

Disclosures: The REGISPONSER registry is funded by the Spanish Society for Rheumatology. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Michelena X et al. Characterising the axial phenotype of psoriatic arthritis: a study comparing axial psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis from the REGISPONSER registry. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002513 (Dec 5). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002513

Key clinical point: Smoking and alcohol consumption were associated with a lower prevalence of arthritis and peripheral manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Smoking was associated with a lower prevalence of arthritis ever (odds ratio [OR] 0.63; 95% CI 0.41-0.95), and current alcohol consumption was associated with a lower prevalence of current arthritis or enthesitis (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.79), current arthritis alone (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53-0.90), and current enthesitis alone (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.71).

Study details: Findings are from a multinational, cross-sectional study including patients with axial spondyloarthritis (n = 2717), peripheral spondyloarthritis (n = 432), and PsA (n = 1032).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ladehesa-Pineda ML et al. Smoking and alcohol consumption are associated with peripheral musculoskeletal involvement in patients with spondyloarthritis (including psoriatic arthritis). Results from the ASAS-PerSpA study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022;58:152146 (Nov 30). Doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152146

Key clinical point: Smoking and alcohol consumption were associated with a lower prevalence of arthritis and peripheral manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Smoking was associated with a lower prevalence of arthritis ever (odds ratio [OR] 0.63; 95% CI 0.41-0.95), and current alcohol consumption was associated with a lower prevalence of current arthritis or enthesitis (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.79), current arthritis alone (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53-0.90), and current enthesitis alone (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.71).

Study details: Findings are from a multinational, cross-sectional study including patients with axial spondyloarthritis (n = 2717), peripheral spondyloarthritis (n = 432), and PsA (n = 1032).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ladehesa-Pineda ML et al. Smoking and alcohol consumption are associated with peripheral musculoskeletal involvement in patients with spondyloarthritis (including psoriatic arthritis). Results from the ASAS-PerSpA study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022;58:152146 (Nov 30). Doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152146

Key clinical point: Smoking and alcohol consumption were associated with a lower prevalence of arthritis and peripheral manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Smoking was associated with a lower prevalence of arthritis ever (odds ratio [OR] 0.63; 95% CI 0.41-0.95), and current alcohol consumption was associated with a lower prevalence of current arthritis or enthesitis (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.79), current arthritis alone (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53-0.90), and current enthesitis alone (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.71).

Study details: Findings are from a multinational, cross-sectional study including patients with axial spondyloarthritis (n = 2717), peripheral spondyloarthritis (n = 432), and PsA (n = 1032).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ladehesa-Pineda ML et al. Smoking and alcohol consumption are associated with peripheral musculoskeletal involvement in patients with spondyloarthritis (including psoriatic arthritis). Results from the ASAS-PerSpA study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022;58:152146 (Nov 30). Doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152146

Key clinical point: Cognitive abilities were altered in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with non-rheumatology reference individuals, with significant impairment in selective attention.

Major finding: Patients with PsA reported significant deficits in selective attention (mean difference [MD] −4.5), no effect on working memory (P = .662) and improvement in episodic short-term memory (MD 3.0; both P < .001) compared with matched reference subjects.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional, exploratory study including 101 patients with axial spondyloarthritis, 117 patients with PsA, and matched non-rheumatology reference subjects without any diseases relevant to cognitive performance.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the RHADAR GbR, Germany. Some authors, including the lead author, declared receiving grants, consulting fees, speaker’s fees, travel support, honoraria, or advisory board support from several sources.

Source: Kleinert S et al. Impairment in cognitive function in patients with axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2022 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1007/s00296-022-05248-4

Key clinical point: Cognitive abilities were altered in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with non-rheumatology reference individuals, with significant impairment in selective attention.

Major finding: Patients with PsA reported significant deficits in selective attention (mean difference [MD] −4.5), no effect on working memory (P = .662) and improvement in episodic short-term memory (MD 3.0; both P < .001) compared with matched reference subjects.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional, exploratory study including 101 patients with axial spondyloarthritis, 117 patients with PsA, and matched non-rheumatology reference subjects without any diseases relevant to cognitive performance.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the RHADAR GbR, Germany. Some authors, including the lead author, declared receiving grants, consulting fees, speaker’s fees, travel support, honoraria, or advisory board support from several sources.

Source: Kleinert S et al. Impairment in cognitive function in patients with axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2022 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1007/s00296-022-05248-4

Key clinical point: Cognitive abilities were altered in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with non-rheumatology reference individuals, with significant impairment in selective attention.

Major finding: Patients with PsA reported significant deficits in selective attention (mean difference [MD] −4.5), no effect on working memory (P = .662) and improvement in episodic short-term memory (MD 3.0; both P < .001) compared with matched reference subjects.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional, exploratory study including 101 patients with axial spondyloarthritis, 117 patients with PsA, and matched non-rheumatology reference subjects without any diseases relevant to cognitive performance.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the RHADAR GbR, Germany. Some authors, including the lead author, declared receiving grants, consulting fees, speaker’s fees, travel support, honoraria, or advisory board support from several sources.

Source: Kleinert S et al. Impairment in cognitive function in patients with axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2022 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1007/s00296-022-05248-4

Key clinical point: Increasing disease activity and joint damage were significant risk factors for requiring musculoskeletal (MSK) surgery in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: A greater number of damaged joints (hazard ratio [HR] 1.032; P < .001), presence of nail lesions (HR 2.079; P < .006), higher health assessment questionnaire scores (HR 2.012; P < .001), an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR 2.365; P = .017), a greater number of actively inflamed joints (HR 1.037; P = .007), and human leukocyte antigen-B*27 positivity (HR 2.217; P = .048) were associated with an increased risk for surgery.

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal, observational cohort study including 1574 patients with PsA, of which 11.8% underwent ≥1 MSK surgery attributable to PsA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Krembil Foundation, Toronto. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwok TSH et al. Musculoskeletal surgery in psoriatic arthritis: Prevalence and risk factors. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Nov 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220908

Key clinical point: Increasing disease activity and joint damage were significant risk factors for requiring musculoskeletal (MSK) surgery in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: A greater number of damaged joints (hazard ratio [HR] 1.032; P < .001), presence of nail lesions (HR 2.079; P < .006), higher health assessment questionnaire scores (HR 2.012; P < .001), an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR 2.365; P = .017), a greater number of actively inflamed joints (HR 1.037; P = .007), and human leukocyte antigen-B*27 positivity (HR 2.217; P = .048) were associated with an increased risk for surgery.

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal, observational cohort study including 1574 patients with PsA, of which 11.8% underwent ≥1 MSK surgery attributable to PsA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Krembil Foundation, Toronto. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwok TSH et al. Musculoskeletal surgery in psoriatic arthritis: Prevalence and risk factors. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Nov 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220908

Key clinical point: Increasing disease activity and joint damage were significant risk factors for requiring musculoskeletal (MSK) surgery in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: A greater number of damaged joints (hazard ratio [HR] 1.032; P < .001), presence of nail lesions (HR 2.079; P < .006), higher health assessment questionnaire scores (HR 2.012; P < .001), an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR 2.365; P = .017), a greater number of actively inflamed joints (HR 1.037; P = .007), and human leukocyte antigen-B*27 positivity (HR 2.217; P = .048) were associated with an increased risk for surgery.

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal, observational cohort study including 1574 patients with PsA, of which 11.8% underwent ≥1 MSK surgery attributable to PsA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Krembil Foundation, Toronto. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwok TSH et al. Musculoskeletal surgery in psoriatic arthritis: Prevalence and risk factors. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Nov 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220908

Key clinical point: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was positively associated with Crohn’s disease and genetically predicted Crohn’s disease was associated with an increased risk for PsA, indicating a bidirectional causal relationship between the 2 diseases.

Major finding: PsA was associated with a 31.9% increased risk for Crohn’s disease (odds ratio [OR] 1.319; P < .001) and genetically predicted Crohn’s disease was linked to a 44.8% higher risk for PsA (OR 1.448; P = .001).

Study details: Findings are from a bidirectional 2-sample mendelian randomization study including 4510 patients with psoriasis, 1637 patients with PsA, and 212,242 control individuals along with 657 patients with Crohn’s disease, 2251 patients with ulcerative colitis, and 210,300 control individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sun Y et al. The causal relationship between psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. Sci Rep. 2022;12:20526 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24872-5

Key clinical point: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was positively associated with Crohn’s disease and genetically predicted Crohn’s disease was associated with an increased risk for PsA, indicating a bidirectional causal relationship between the 2 diseases.

Major finding: PsA was associated with a 31.9% increased risk for Crohn’s disease (odds ratio [OR] 1.319; P < .001) and genetically predicted Crohn’s disease was linked to a 44.8% higher risk for PsA (OR 1.448; P = .001).

Study details: Findings are from a bidirectional 2-sample mendelian randomization study including 4510 patients with psoriasis, 1637 patients with PsA, and 212,242 control individuals along with 657 patients with Crohn’s disease, 2251 patients with ulcerative colitis, and 210,300 control individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sun Y et al. The causal relationship between psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. Sci Rep. 2022;12:20526 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24872-5

Key clinical point: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was positively associated with Crohn’s disease and genetically predicted Crohn’s disease was associated with an increased risk for PsA, indicating a bidirectional causal relationship between the 2 diseases.

Major finding: PsA was associated with a 31.9% increased risk for Crohn’s disease (odds ratio [OR] 1.319; P < .001) and genetically predicted Crohn’s disease was linked to a 44.8% higher risk for PsA (OR 1.448; P = .001).

Study details: Findings are from a bidirectional 2-sample mendelian randomization study including 4510 patients with psoriasis, 1637 patients with PsA, and 212,242 control individuals along with 657 patients with Crohn’s disease, 2251 patients with ulcerative colitis, and 210,300 control individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sun Y et al. The causal relationship between psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. Sci Rep. 2022;12:20526 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24872-5

Key clinical point: Nailfold capillary abnormalities were more prevalent in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than in patients with psoriasis vulgaris (PsV) and predicted the development of PsA in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: Nailfold bleeding (NFB; 84.5% vs 34.7%) and enlarged capillaries (100.0% vs 25.4%; both P < .0001) were more prevalent in patients with PsA vs PsV, with both NFB (hazard ratio [HR] 2.75; P = .004) and enlarged capillaries (HR 4.49; P < .0001) predicting the development of PsA in patients with PsV.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 236 patients with PsV and 213 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fukasawa T et al. Utility of nailfold capillary assessment for predicting psoriatic arthritis based on a prospective observational cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac664

Key clinical point: Nailfold capillary abnormalities were more prevalent in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than in patients with psoriasis vulgaris (PsV) and predicted the development of PsA in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: Nailfold bleeding (NFB; 84.5% vs 34.7%) and enlarged capillaries (100.0% vs 25.4%; both P < .0001) were more prevalent in patients with PsA vs PsV, with both NFB (hazard ratio [HR] 2.75; P = .004) and enlarged capillaries (HR 4.49; P < .0001) predicting the development of PsA in patients with PsV.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 236 patients with PsV and 213 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fukasawa T et al. Utility of nailfold capillary assessment for predicting psoriatic arthritis based on a prospective observational cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac664

Key clinical point: Nailfold capillary abnormalities were more prevalent in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than in patients with psoriasis vulgaris (PsV) and predicted the development of PsA in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: Nailfold bleeding (NFB; 84.5% vs 34.7%) and enlarged capillaries (100.0% vs 25.4%; both P < .0001) were more prevalent in patients with PsA vs PsV, with both NFB (hazard ratio [HR] 2.75; P = .004) and enlarged capillaries (HR 4.49; P < .0001) predicting the development of PsA in patients with PsV.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 236 patients with PsV and 213 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fukasawa T et al. Utility of nailfold capillary assessment for predicting psoriatic arthritis based on a prospective observational cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac664

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab improved the signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with previous inadequate response to or intolerance of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα) inhibitors without causing any unprecedented adverse events (AE).

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (43% vs 7%; odds ratio 11.1; P < .0001), with treatment-emergent AE being reported by 40% of patients receiving bimekizumab and 33% of patients receiving placebo.

Study details: Findings are from the multicenter, phase 3 BE COMPLETE study including 400 patients with active PsA and previous inadequate response to or intolerance of TNFα inhibitors who were randomly assigned to receive 160 mg subcutaneous bimekizumab every 4 weeks or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Five authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Merola JF et al. Bimekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (BE COMPLETE). Lancet. 2022 (Dec 6). Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02303-0

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab improved the signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with previous inadequate response to or intolerance of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα) inhibitors without causing any unprecedented adverse events (AE).

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (43% vs 7%; odds ratio 11.1; P < .0001), with treatment-emergent AE being reported by 40% of patients receiving bimekizumab and 33% of patients receiving placebo.

Study details: Findings are from the multicenter, phase 3 BE COMPLETE study including 400 patients with active PsA and previous inadequate response to or intolerance of TNFα inhibitors who were randomly assigned to receive 160 mg subcutaneous bimekizumab every 4 weeks or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Five authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Merola JF et al. Bimekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (BE COMPLETE). Lancet. 2022 (Dec 6). Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02303-0

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab improved the signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with previous inadequate response to or intolerance of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα) inhibitors without causing any unprecedented adverse events (AE).

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (43% vs 7%; odds ratio 11.1; P < .0001), with treatment-emergent AE being reported by 40% of patients receiving bimekizumab and 33% of patients receiving placebo.

Study details: Findings are from the multicenter, phase 3 BE COMPLETE study including 400 patients with active PsA and previous inadequate response to or intolerance of TNFα inhibitors who were randomly assigned to receive 160 mg subcutaneous bimekizumab every 4 weeks or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Five authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Merola JF et al. Bimekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (BE COMPLETE). Lancet. 2022 (Dec 6). Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02303-0

Key clinical point: A booster dose of BNT162b2 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BioNTech-Pfizer) restored the anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

Major finding: Although the mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were significantly lower in patients with PsA vs matched control individuals (2009.22 vs 6206.59 AU/mL; P = .0006) 4 months after two doses of vaccination, the mean IgG levels were similar between both groups after the booster dose (P = .20).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 40 patients with PsA on TNF inhibitors and 40 matched control individuals who received two shots of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Venerito V et al. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody decay after vaccination and immunogenicity of the booster dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in patients with psoriatic arthritis on TNF inhibitors. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2022 (Nov 24). Doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/hptln9

Key clinical point: A booster dose of BNT162b2 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BioNTech-Pfizer) restored the anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

Major finding: Although the mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were significantly lower in patients with PsA vs matched control individuals (2009.22 vs 6206.59 AU/mL; P = .0006) 4 months after two doses of vaccination, the mean IgG levels were similar between both groups after the booster dose (P = .20).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 40 patients with PsA on TNF inhibitors and 40 matched control individuals who received two shots of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Venerito V et al. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody decay after vaccination and immunogenicity of the booster dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in patients with psoriatic arthritis on TNF inhibitors. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2022 (Nov 24). Doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/hptln9

Key clinical point: A booster dose of BNT162b2 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BioNTech-Pfizer) restored the anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

Major finding: Although the mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were significantly lower in patients with PsA vs matched control individuals (2009.22 vs 6206.59 AU/mL; P = .0006) 4 months after two doses of vaccination, the mean IgG levels were similar between both groups after the booster dose (P = .20).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 40 patients with PsA on TNF inhibitors and 40 matched control individuals who received two shots of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Venerito V et al. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody decay after vaccination and immunogenicity of the booster dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in patients with psoriatic arthritis on TNF inhibitors. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2022 (Nov 24). Doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/hptln9

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab demonstrated superior efficacy outcomes compared with placebo and was well-tolerated with a consistent safety profile in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were naive to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (44% vs 10%; odds ratio 7.1; P < .0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 60% vs 49% of patients in the bimekizumab vs placebo arm, respectively, and no deaths occurred.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 BE OPTIMAL study including 852 patients with active PsA who were naive to bDMARD and were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo, or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Five authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma, and the other authors declared receiving grants, fees, honoraria, or having other ties with several sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: McInnes IB et al. Bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis, naive to biologic treatment: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (BE OPTIMAL). Lancet. 2022 (Dec 5). Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02302-9

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab demonstrated superior efficacy outcomes compared with placebo and was well-tolerated with a consistent safety profile in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were naive to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (44% vs 10%; odds ratio 7.1; P < .0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 60% vs 49% of patients in the bimekizumab vs placebo arm, respectively, and no deaths occurred.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 BE OPTIMAL study including 852 patients with active PsA who were naive to bDMARD and were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo, or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Five authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma, and the other authors declared receiving grants, fees, honoraria, or having other ties with several sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: McInnes IB et al. Bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis, naive to biologic treatment: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (BE OPTIMAL). Lancet. 2022 (Dec 5). Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02302-9

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab demonstrated superior efficacy outcomes compared with placebo and was well-tolerated with a consistent safety profile in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were naive to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (44% vs 10%; odds ratio 7.1; P < .0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 60% vs 49% of patients in the bimekizumab vs placebo arm, respectively, and no deaths occurred.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 BE OPTIMAL study including 852 patients with active PsA who were naive to bDMARD and were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo, or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Five authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma, and the other authors declared receiving grants, fees, honoraria, or having other ties with several sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: McInnes IB et al. Bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis, naive to biologic treatment: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (BE OPTIMAL). Lancet. 2022 (Dec 5). Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02302-9

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.