MDedge Rheumatology

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

GHENT, BELGIUM – Over 10% of patients referred by chiropractors to rheumatology had undiagnosed spondyloarthritis, with axial spondyloarthritis being the most common, according to new data. The U.S. study was aimed at understanding what proportion of back pain patients have undiagnosed spondyloarthritis.

The study also found that the most common cause for which patients see chiropractors is neck/cervical pain.

Atul Deodhar, MD, MRCP, rheumatologist and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, was senior author of the poster that was presented at the 13th International Congress of Spondyloarthritides.

“In the U.S., many people with back pain go to chiropractors, but many chiropractors are not aware of axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] terminology, and very little – if anything – is published in chiropractic literature, “ he said in an interview.

He remarked that the study highlighted the need to develop a better strategy to identify undiagnosed patients, because the yield found in their study was poor (13%). “Patient-reported spondyloarthritis criteria are often poor, and do not match rheumatologist-inquired history,” he noted, adding that, “inflammatory back pain is in fact a poor ‘entry point.’ ”

Ulrich Weber, MD, rheumatologist from the Practice Buchsbaum in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, commented on the findings, saying he often receives delayed referrals from chiropractors, so “it would be very useful if patients could be more easily and accurately identifiable via this route, but the problem is chiropractors do not have a specific training to spot spondyloarthritis.”

He added that he welcomed the study but noted, “the criteria used to identify patients in this study are broad and I’d worry that it would inundate our rheumatology practice. There remains a real need for a good method of identifying the patients.”
 

Referral to rheumatology

Back pain is highly prevalent in the general population, with a global mean lifetime prevalence of 38.9%. Chiropractors treat many patients with back pain of unknown cause.

“In this study, we wanted to see what percentage of patients in chiropractic practice have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis, and what are the common complaints. Our hypothesis was that chiropractors may be missing such patients,” Dr. Deodhar explained.

Dr. Deodhar and colleagues recruited chiropractors from four different parts of the city of Portland into the study. “We think Portland, Oregon, is a typical U.S. city, and our results could be generalized. However, this is our impression alone,” he remarked.

Adults, under the age of 45 years who attended a participating chiropractic clinics between November 2020 and November 2021 for chronic back pain and without a prior diagnosis of spondyloarthritis were eligible for inclusion.

If the patient reported at least one feature of spondyloarthritis in the screening questionnaire they were referred to a rheumatologist for a diagnostic assessment. This assessment involved taking history by telephone, both laboratory tests and imaging, and the patients were categorized as radiographic axSpA, nonradiographic axSpA, peripheral SpA, or no SpA.

The screening questionnaire included the following examples: If the patient was under 45 years and had chronic pain in back, hip or buttocks, then they were asked for more information including whether their pain was gradual (insidious) in onset; if the pain started before the age of 40; and if the pain improved with physical activities or movements. Use of drugs was investigated including whether the pain improved significantly with NSAIDs and whether the patient has current or past heel pains, particularly when waking up in the morning. They were also asked if they have experienced skin psoriasis. Other questions were asked about the presence of uveitis, iritis, family history of psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, or ankylosing spondylitis, and whether the patient had unexplained joint pains plus joint swelling.
 

Ten percent of patients referred to rheumatology

A total of 3,103 visits to chiropractor clinics were included, of which 115 patients were referred to a rheumatologist. Eventually, 63 patients were fully assessed by a rheumatologist.

Of those patients who were fully assessed, 12.7% has spondyloarthritis, with one having confirmed radiographic axSpA, five having nonradiographic SpA, and two having peripheral spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Based on the referral questionnaire, all patients reported at least four SpA criteria were met, said Dr. Deodhar.

Of those patients diagnosed with SpA, 14% (1) has elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, 14% (1) were HLA-B27 positive, and 14% (1) were identified as having both elevated CRP and HLA-B27 positivity. Sacroiliac joint inflammation was found in 14% (1) on MRI and one had sacroiliac joint inflammation according to modified New York criteria. One (14%) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation on MRI and elevated CRP, and 14% (1) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation and was HLA-B27 positive.

The top complaints reported by patients at chiropractor clinics were neck and cervical spine pain/spasm (16.8%); followed by acute low back pain (11.7%); acute upper back (7.1%); and chronic lower back pain (6.9%).
 

No patients with more than 10 SpA criteria

The performance of an initial diagnostic assessment based on patient reported SpA criteria, as compared with the outcome of the full diagnosis (by a rheumatologist) showed that patients with one to four SpA criteria had a sensitivity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.85), and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.84). This increased to sensitivity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.17-1.03), and specificity of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.44-0.77) when six SpA criteria were present.

Dr. Deodhar said the results supported a need to further develop the chiropractor’s role in identifying the right patients for referral, and that the study showed that a referral strategy is required to find undiagnosed patients with spondyloarthritis from chiropractic offices. “Chiropractors need education for axSpA, when to suspect, and when to refer,” he asserted. “What referral strategy to use is for debate – the ASAS [Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society] strategy is too sensitive and not specific enough.”

Dr. Deodhar noted that SPARTAN (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network) is working on a referral strategy that is likely to be more specific, and that more data would be forthcoming soon.

Dr. Deodhar declared affiliations with multiple companies involved in the field unrelated to the study. Dr. Weber declared no relevant disclosures.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Over 10% of patients referred by chiropractors to rheumatology had undiagnosed spondyloarthritis, with axial spondyloarthritis being the most common, according to new data. The U.S. study was aimed at understanding what proportion of back pain patients have undiagnosed spondyloarthritis.

The study also found that the most common cause for which patients see chiropractors is neck/cervical pain.

Atul Deodhar, MD, MRCP, rheumatologist and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, was senior author of the poster that was presented at the 13th International Congress of Spondyloarthritides.

“In the U.S., many people with back pain go to chiropractors, but many chiropractors are not aware of axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] terminology, and very little – if anything – is published in chiropractic literature, “ he said in an interview.

He remarked that the study highlighted the need to develop a better strategy to identify undiagnosed patients, because the yield found in their study was poor (13%). “Patient-reported spondyloarthritis criteria are often poor, and do not match rheumatologist-inquired history,” he noted, adding that, “inflammatory back pain is in fact a poor ‘entry point.’ ”

Ulrich Weber, MD, rheumatologist from the Practice Buchsbaum in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, commented on the findings, saying he often receives delayed referrals from chiropractors, so “it would be very useful if patients could be more easily and accurately identifiable via this route, but the problem is chiropractors do not have a specific training to spot spondyloarthritis.”

He added that he welcomed the study but noted, “the criteria used to identify patients in this study are broad and I’d worry that it would inundate our rheumatology practice. There remains a real need for a good method of identifying the patients.”
 

Referral to rheumatology

Back pain is highly prevalent in the general population, with a global mean lifetime prevalence of 38.9%. Chiropractors treat many patients with back pain of unknown cause.

“In this study, we wanted to see what percentage of patients in chiropractic practice have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis, and what are the common complaints. Our hypothesis was that chiropractors may be missing such patients,” Dr. Deodhar explained.

Dr. Deodhar and colleagues recruited chiropractors from four different parts of the city of Portland into the study. “We think Portland, Oregon, is a typical U.S. city, and our results could be generalized. However, this is our impression alone,” he remarked.

Adults, under the age of 45 years who attended a participating chiropractic clinics between November 2020 and November 2021 for chronic back pain and without a prior diagnosis of spondyloarthritis were eligible for inclusion.

If the patient reported at least one feature of spondyloarthritis in the screening questionnaire they were referred to a rheumatologist for a diagnostic assessment. This assessment involved taking history by telephone, both laboratory tests and imaging, and the patients were categorized as radiographic axSpA, nonradiographic axSpA, peripheral SpA, or no SpA.

The screening questionnaire included the following examples: If the patient was under 45 years and had chronic pain in back, hip or buttocks, then they were asked for more information including whether their pain was gradual (insidious) in onset; if the pain started before the age of 40; and if the pain improved with physical activities or movements. Use of drugs was investigated including whether the pain improved significantly with NSAIDs and whether the patient has current or past heel pains, particularly when waking up in the morning. They were also asked if they have experienced skin psoriasis. Other questions were asked about the presence of uveitis, iritis, family history of psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, or ankylosing spondylitis, and whether the patient had unexplained joint pains plus joint swelling.
 

Ten percent of patients referred to rheumatology

A total of 3,103 visits to chiropractor clinics were included, of which 115 patients were referred to a rheumatologist. Eventually, 63 patients were fully assessed by a rheumatologist.

Of those patients who were fully assessed, 12.7% has spondyloarthritis, with one having confirmed radiographic axSpA, five having nonradiographic SpA, and two having peripheral spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Based on the referral questionnaire, all patients reported at least four SpA criteria were met, said Dr. Deodhar.

Of those patients diagnosed with SpA, 14% (1) has elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, 14% (1) were HLA-B27 positive, and 14% (1) were identified as having both elevated CRP and HLA-B27 positivity. Sacroiliac joint inflammation was found in 14% (1) on MRI and one had sacroiliac joint inflammation according to modified New York criteria. One (14%) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation on MRI and elevated CRP, and 14% (1) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation and was HLA-B27 positive.

The top complaints reported by patients at chiropractor clinics were neck and cervical spine pain/spasm (16.8%); followed by acute low back pain (11.7%); acute upper back (7.1%); and chronic lower back pain (6.9%).
 

No patients with more than 10 SpA criteria

The performance of an initial diagnostic assessment based on patient reported SpA criteria, as compared with the outcome of the full diagnosis (by a rheumatologist) showed that patients with one to four SpA criteria had a sensitivity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.85), and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.84). This increased to sensitivity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.17-1.03), and specificity of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.44-0.77) when six SpA criteria were present.

Dr. Deodhar said the results supported a need to further develop the chiropractor’s role in identifying the right patients for referral, and that the study showed that a referral strategy is required to find undiagnosed patients with spondyloarthritis from chiropractic offices. “Chiropractors need education for axSpA, when to suspect, and when to refer,” he asserted. “What referral strategy to use is for debate – the ASAS [Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society] strategy is too sensitive and not specific enough.”

Dr. Deodhar noted that SPARTAN (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network) is working on a referral strategy that is likely to be more specific, and that more data would be forthcoming soon.

Dr. Deodhar declared affiliations with multiple companies involved in the field unrelated to the study. Dr. Weber declared no relevant disclosures.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Over 10% of patients referred by chiropractors to rheumatology had undiagnosed spondyloarthritis, with axial spondyloarthritis being the most common, according to new data. The U.S. study was aimed at understanding what proportion of back pain patients have undiagnosed spondyloarthritis.

The study also found that the most common cause for which patients see chiropractors is neck/cervical pain.

Atul Deodhar, MD, MRCP, rheumatologist and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, was senior author of the poster that was presented at the 13th International Congress of Spondyloarthritides.

“In the U.S., many people with back pain go to chiropractors, but many chiropractors are not aware of axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] terminology, and very little – if anything – is published in chiropractic literature, “ he said in an interview.

He remarked that the study highlighted the need to develop a better strategy to identify undiagnosed patients, because the yield found in their study was poor (13%). “Patient-reported spondyloarthritis criteria are often poor, and do not match rheumatologist-inquired history,” he noted, adding that, “inflammatory back pain is in fact a poor ‘entry point.’ ”

Ulrich Weber, MD, rheumatologist from the Practice Buchsbaum in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, commented on the findings, saying he often receives delayed referrals from chiropractors, so “it would be very useful if patients could be more easily and accurately identifiable via this route, but the problem is chiropractors do not have a specific training to spot spondyloarthritis.”

He added that he welcomed the study but noted, “the criteria used to identify patients in this study are broad and I’d worry that it would inundate our rheumatology practice. There remains a real need for a good method of identifying the patients.”
 

Referral to rheumatology

Back pain is highly prevalent in the general population, with a global mean lifetime prevalence of 38.9%. Chiropractors treat many patients with back pain of unknown cause.

“In this study, we wanted to see what percentage of patients in chiropractic practice have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis, and what are the common complaints. Our hypothesis was that chiropractors may be missing such patients,” Dr. Deodhar explained.

Dr. Deodhar and colleagues recruited chiropractors from four different parts of the city of Portland into the study. “We think Portland, Oregon, is a typical U.S. city, and our results could be generalized. However, this is our impression alone,” he remarked.

Adults, under the age of 45 years who attended a participating chiropractic clinics between November 2020 and November 2021 for chronic back pain and without a prior diagnosis of spondyloarthritis were eligible for inclusion.

If the patient reported at least one feature of spondyloarthritis in the screening questionnaire they were referred to a rheumatologist for a diagnostic assessment. This assessment involved taking history by telephone, both laboratory tests and imaging, and the patients were categorized as radiographic axSpA, nonradiographic axSpA, peripheral SpA, or no SpA.

The screening questionnaire included the following examples: If the patient was under 45 years and had chronic pain in back, hip or buttocks, then they were asked for more information including whether their pain was gradual (insidious) in onset; if the pain started before the age of 40; and if the pain improved with physical activities or movements. Use of drugs was investigated including whether the pain improved significantly with NSAIDs and whether the patient has current or past heel pains, particularly when waking up in the morning. They were also asked if they have experienced skin psoriasis. Other questions were asked about the presence of uveitis, iritis, family history of psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, or ankylosing spondylitis, and whether the patient had unexplained joint pains plus joint swelling.
 

Ten percent of patients referred to rheumatology

A total of 3,103 visits to chiropractor clinics were included, of which 115 patients were referred to a rheumatologist. Eventually, 63 patients were fully assessed by a rheumatologist.

Of those patients who were fully assessed, 12.7% has spondyloarthritis, with one having confirmed radiographic axSpA, five having nonradiographic SpA, and two having peripheral spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Based on the referral questionnaire, all patients reported at least four SpA criteria were met, said Dr. Deodhar.

Of those patients diagnosed with SpA, 14% (1) has elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, 14% (1) were HLA-B27 positive, and 14% (1) were identified as having both elevated CRP and HLA-B27 positivity. Sacroiliac joint inflammation was found in 14% (1) on MRI and one had sacroiliac joint inflammation according to modified New York criteria. One (14%) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation on MRI and elevated CRP, and 14% (1) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation and was HLA-B27 positive.

The top complaints reported by patients at chiropractor clinics were neck and cervical spine pain/spasm (16.8%); followed by acute low back pain (11.7%); acute upper back (7.1%); and chronic lower back pain (6.9%).
 

No patients with more than 10 SpA criteria

The performance of an initial diagnostic assessment based on patient reported SpA criteria, as compared with the outcome of the full diagnosis (by a rheumatologist) showed that patients with one to four SpA criteria had a sensitivity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.85), and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.84). This increased to sensitivity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.17-1.03), and specificity of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.44-0.77) when six SpA criteria were present.

Dr. Deodhar said the results supported a need to further develop the chiropractor’s role in identifying the right patients for referral, and that the study showed that a referral strategy is required to find undiagnosed patients with spondyloarthritis from chiropractic offices. “Chiropractors need education for axSpA, when to suspect, and when to refer,” he asserted. “What referral strategy to use is for debate – the ASAS [Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society] strategy is too sensitive and not specific enough.”

Dr. Deodhar noted that SPARTAN (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network) is working on a referral strategy that is likely to be more specific, and that more data would be forthcoming soon.

Dr. Deodhar declared affiliations with multiple companies involved in the field unrelated to the study. Dr. Weber declared no relevant disclosures.

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Key clinical point: Methotrexate dosage may be tapered from targeted therapy in patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but with a low risk for not being able to sustain remission for up to 18 months.

Major finding: The ability to sustain remission for up to 18 months was 10% lower in patients with RA who tapered vs did not taper methotrexate from targeted therapy (risk ratio 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97).

Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 studies including 2000 patients with early or established RA who received any targeted therapy in combination with methotrexate and eventually tapered their methotrexate dosage.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. Some authors reported receiving grants, honoraria or consulting fees, or owning stocks in various sources.

Source: Meng CF et al. Can patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis taper methotrexate from targeted therapy and sustain remission? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Aug 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220152

Key clinical point: Methotrexate dosage may be tapered from targeted therapy in patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but with a low risk for not being able to sustain remission for up to 18 months.

Major finding: The ability to sustain remission for up to 18 months was 10% lower in patients with RA who tapered vs did not taper methotrexate from targeted therapy (risk ratio 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97).

Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 studies including 2000 patients with early or established RA who received any targeted therapy in combination with methotrexate and eventually tapered their methotrexate dosage.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. Some authors reported receiving grants, honoraria or consulting fees, or owning stocks in various sources.

Source: Meng CF et al. Can patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis taper methotrexate from targeted therapy and sustain remission? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Aug 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220152

Key clinical point: Methotrexate dosage may be tapered from targeted therapy in patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but with a low risk for not being able to sustain remission for up to 18 months.

Major finding: The ability to sustain remission for up to 18 months was 10% lower in patients with RA who tapered vs did not taper methotrexate from targeted therapy (risk ratio 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97).

Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 studies including 2000 patients with early or established RA who received any targeted therapy in combination with methotrexate and eventually tapered their methotrexate dosage.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. Some authors reported receiving grants, honoraria or consulting fees, or owning stocks in various sources.

Source: Meng CF et al. Can patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis taper methotrexate from targeted therapy and sustain remission? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Aug 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220152

Key clinical point: Real-world analysis demonstrated a higher efficacy of non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (non-TNFi) vs TNFi and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) vs biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), along with a higher efficacy of adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab vs infliximab within TNFi.

Major finding: Efficacies of TNFi vs non-TNFi drugs (risk ratio [RR] 0.88; P < .01) and bDMARD vs JAKi (RR 0.86; P < .01) were lower. Among TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab were 19.0% more effective than infliximab (RR 1.19; P < .01).

Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 population-based, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies including 182,098 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Secretariat of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Strategic Inputs of the Ministry of Health, Brazil, and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: de Castro CT et al. Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:927179  (Aug 11). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.927179

Key clinical point: Real-world analysis demonstrated a higher efficacy of non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (non-TNFi) vs TNFi and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) vs biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), along with a higher efficacy of adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab vs infliximab within TNFi.

Major finding: Efficacies of TNFi vs non-TNFi drugs (risk ratio [RR] 0.88; P < .01) and bDMARD vs JAKi (RR 0.86; P < .01) were lower. Among TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab were 19.0% more effective than infliximab (RR 1.19; P < .01).

Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 population-based, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies including 182,098 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Secretariat of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Strategic Inputs of the Ministry of Health, Brazil, and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: de Castro CT et al. Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:927179  (Aug 11). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.927179

Key clinical point: Real-world analysis demonstrated a higher efficacy of non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (non-TNFi) vs TNFi and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) vs biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), along with a higher efficacy of adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab vs infliximab within TNFi.

Major finding: Efficacies of TNFi vs non-TNFi drugs (risk ratio [RR] 0.88; P < .01) and bDMARD vs JAKi (RR 0.86; P < .01) were lower. Among TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab were 19.0% more effective than infliximab (RR 1.19; P < .01).

Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 population-based, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies including 182,098 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Secretariat of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Strategic Inputs of the Ministry of Health, Brazil, and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: de Castro CT et al. Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:927179  (Aug 11). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.927179

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD) were at a reduced risk for incident dementia compared with those who received conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) alone.

Major finding: Compared with only csDMARD use, the use of b/tsDMARD was associated with a 19% lower risk for incident dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.81; 95% CI 0.76-0.87), with findings being similar for all b/tsDMARD categories: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi; aHR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.93), non-TNFi (aHR 0.76; 95% CI 0.70-0.83), and tsDMARD (aHR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53-0.90).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 141,326 patients aged ≥40 years with RA who received b/tsDMARD with or without csDMARD or csDMARD only.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a BIGDATA core grant from the US National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving research support, grants, or consulting fees from various sources.

Source: Sattui SE et al. Incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and association with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs - Analysis of a national claims database. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022 (Aug 17). Doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152083

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD) were at a reduced risk for incident dementia compared with those who received conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) alone.

Major finding: Compared with only csDMARD use, the use of b/tsDMARD was associated with a 19% lower risk for incident dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.81; 95% CI 0.76-0.87), with findings being similar for all b/tsDMARD categories: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi; aHR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.93), non-TNFi (aHR 0.76; 95% CI 0.70-0.83), and tsDMARD (aHR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53-0.90).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 141,326 patients aged ≥40 years with RA who received b/tsDMARD with or without csDMARD or csDMARD only.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a BIGDATA core grant from the US National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving research support, grants, or consulting fees from various sources.

Source: Sattui SE et al. Incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and association with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs - Analysis of a national claims database. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022 (Aug 17). Doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152083

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD) were at a reduced risk for incident dementia compared with those who received conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) alone.

Major finding: Compared with only csDMARD use, the use of b/tsDMARD was associated with a 19% lower risk for incident dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.81; 95% CI 0.76-0.87), with findings being similar for all b/tsDMARD categories: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi; aHR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.93), non-TNFi (aHR 0.76; 95% CI 0.70-0.83), and tsDMARD (aHR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53-0.90).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 141,326 patients aged ≥40 years with RA who received b/tsDMARD with or without csDMARD or csDMARD only.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a BIGDATA core grant from the US National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving research support, grants, or consulting fees from various sources.

Source: Sattui SE et al. Incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and association with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs - Analysis of a national claims database. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022 (Aug 17). Doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152083

Key clinical point: Iguratimod as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate showed clear benefits over methotrexate in improving disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) along with a comparable safety profile.

Major finding: Compared with methotrexate monotherapy, iguratimod monotherapy and iguratimod+methotrexate therapy were associated with more effective improvements in the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; P  =  .004; and RR 1.24; P < .00001, respectively) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mean difference [MD] −0.15; P  =  .01; and MD −1.43; P < .00001, respectively) with a similar incidence of adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials including 4302 patients with RA who received iguratimod alone, iguratimod with methotrexate, methotrexate alone, or methotrexate with leflunomide or hydroxychloroquine or tripterygium glycosides.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Youth Science Foundation of China and Research Fund of Hunan Province Education Department. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ouyang D et al. Effectiveness and safety of iguratimod monotherapy or combined with methotrexate in treating rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:911810 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.911810

Key clinical point: Iguratimod as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate showed clear benefits over methotrexate in improving disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) along with a comparable safety profile.

Major finding: Compared with methotrexate monotherapy, iguratimod monotherapy and iguratimod+methotrexate therapy were associated with more effective improvements in the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; P  =  .004; and RR 1.24; P < .00001, respectively) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mean difference [MD] −0.15; P  =  .01; and MD −1.43; P < .00001, respectively) with a similar incidence of adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials including 4302 patients with RA who received iguratimod alone, iguratimod with methotrexate, methotrexate alone, or methotrexate with leflunomide or hydroxychloroquine or tripterygium glycosides.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Youth Science Foundation of China and Research Fund of Hunan Province Education Department. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ouyang D et al. Effectiveness and safety of iguratimod monotherapy or combined with methotrexate in treating rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:911810 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.911810

Key clinical point: Iguratimod as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate showed clear benefits over methotrexate in improving disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) along with a comparable safety profile.

Major finding: Compared with methotrexate monotherapy, iguratimod monotherapy and iguratimod+methotrexate therapy were associated with more effective improvements in the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; P  =  .004; and RR 1.24; P < .00001, respectively) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mean difference [MD] −0.15; P  =  .01; and MD −1.43; P < .00001, respectively) with a similar incidence of adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials including 4302 patients with RA who received iguratimod alone, iguratimod with methotrexate, methotrexate alone, or methotrexate with leflunomide or hydroxychloroquine or tripterygium glycosides.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Youth Science Foundation of China and Research Fund of Hunan Province Education Department. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ouyang D et al. Effectiveness and safety of iguratimod monotherapy or combined with methotrexate in treating rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:911810 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.911810

Key clinical point: Individual tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) might be feasible in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission for more than 6 months.

Major finding: The risks for flare (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.88; 95% CI 0.59-1.30) and loss of remission (aHR 1.04; 95% CI 0.73-1.49) were not significantly different among patients who tapered vs continued DMARD. The clinical disease activity index showed a minor and nonsignificant increase at 12 months in patients who tapered vs continued DMARD (1.80 vs 0.91 units; P  =  .076).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a prospective cohort of 437 patients with RA in sustained remission for ≥6 months who either tapered or continued DMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany. All authors reported receiving grants from the Federal Joint Committee. E Edelmann reported receiving personal fees from various sources. F Verheyen contributed as an employee of Techniker Krankenkasse.

Source: Birkner B et al. Patient-individual tapering of DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a real-world setting. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 18). Doi:  10.1093/rheumatology/keac472

Key clinical point: Individual tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) might be feasible in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission for more than 6 months.

Major finding: The risks for flare (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.88; 95% CI 0.59-1.30) and loss of remission (aHR 1.04; 95% CI 0.73-1.49) were not significantly different among patients who tapered vs continued DMARD. The clinical disease activity index showed a minor and nonsignificant increase at 12 months in patients who tapered vs continued DMARD (1.80 vs 0.91 units; P  =  .076).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a prospective cohort of 437 patients with RA in sustained remission for ≥6 months who either tapered or continued DMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany. All authors reported receiving grants from the Federal Joint Committee. E Edelmann reported receiving personal fees from various sources. F Verheyen contributed as an employee of Techniker Krankenkasse.

Source: Birkner B et al. Patient-individual tapering of DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a real-world setting. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 18). Doi:  10.1093/rheumatology/keac472

Key clinical point: Individual tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) might be feasible in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission for more than 6 months.

Major finding: The risks for flare (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.88; 95% CI 0.59-1.30) and loss of remission (aHR 1.04; 95% CI 0.73-1.49) were not significantly different among patients who tapered vs continued DMARD. The clinical disease activity index showed a minor and nonsignificant increase at 12 months in patients who tapered vs continued DMARD (1.80 vs 0.91 units; P  =  .076).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a prospective cohort of 437 patients with RA in sustained remission for ≥6 months who either tapered or continued DMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany. All authors reported receiving grants from the Federal Joint Committee. E Edelmann reported receiving personal fees from various sources. F Verheyen contributed as an employee of Techniker Krankenkasse.

Source: Birkner B et al. Patient-individual tapering of DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a real-world setting. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 18). Doi:  10.1093/rheumatology/keac472

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (methotrexate-IR) who initiated upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent a longer time in improved disease states and reported faster achievement of treatment targets.

Major finding: Patients initially receiving upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent 19% vs 14% of the time over 48 weeks in clinical disease activity index remission (nominal P  =  .012) and achieved the 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein of <2.6/≤3.2 approximately 6-8 weeks (median time) earlier.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis including patients with RA and methotrexate-IR from the phase 3 SELECT-COMPARE trial who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib (n = 651) or adalimumab (n = 327) with background methotrexate.

Disclosures: The trial was funded by AbbVie, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of and may own stocks or options in AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Mysler E et al. Impact of initial therapy with upadacitinib or adalimumab on achievement of 48-week treatment goals in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Post hoc analysis of SELECT-COMPARE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 26). Doi:  10.1093/rheumatology/keac477

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (methotrexate-IR) who initiated upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent a longer time in improved disease states and reported faster achievement of treatment targets.

Major finding: Patients initially receiving upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent 19% vs 14% of the time over 48 weeks in clinical disease activity index remission (nominal P  =  .012) and achieved the 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein of <2.6/≤3.2 approximately 6-8 weeks (median time) earlier.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis including patients with RA and methotrexate-IR from the phase 3 SELECT-COMPARE trial who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib (n = 651) or adalimumab (n = 327) with background methotrexate.

Disclosures: The trial was funded by AbbVie, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of and may own stocks or options in AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Mysler E et al. Impact of initial therapy with upadacitinib or adalimumab on achievement of 48-week treatment goals in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Post hoc analysis of SELECT-COMPARE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 26). Doi:  10.1093/rheumatology/keac477

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (methotrexate-IR) who initiated upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent a longer time in improved disease states and reported faster achievement of treatment targets.

Major finding: Patients initially receiving upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent 19% vs 14% of the time over 48 weeks in clinical disease activity index remission (nominal P  =  .012) and achieved the 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein of <2.6/≤3.2 approximately 6-8 weeks (median time) earlier.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis including patients with RA and methotrexate-IR from the phase 3 SELECT-COMPARE trial who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib (n = 651) or adalimumab (n = 327) with background methotrexate.

Disclosures: The trial was funded by AbbVie, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of and may own stocks or options in AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Mysler E et al. Impact of initial therapy with upadacitinib or adalimumab on achievement of 48-week treatment goals in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Post hoc analysis of SELECT-COMPARE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 26). Doi:  10.1093/rheumatology/keac477