OBJECTIVE: We conducted a 2-phase randomized controlled trial of a learning collaborative to facilitate implementation of treat-to-target (T2T) to manage rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We found substantial improvement in implementation of T2T in phase I. Here, we report on a second 9 months (phase II), where we examined the maintenance of response in phase I and predictors of greater improvement in T2T adherence. METHODS: We recruited patients from 11 rheumatology sites and randomized them to either receive the learning collaborative during phase I or to a wait-list control group that received the learning collaborative intervention during phase II. The outcome was change in T2T implementation score (0-100, where 100 = best) from pre- to postintervention. The T2T implementation score was defined as a percent of components documented in visit notes. Analyses examined the extent to which the phase-I intervention teams sustained improvement in T2T, as well as predictors of T2T improvement. RESULTS: The analysis included 636 RA patients. At baseline, the mean T2T implementation score was 11% in phase I intervention sites and 13% in phase II sites. After the intervention, T2T implementation score improved to 57% in the phase I intervention sites and to 58% in the phase II sites. Intervention sites from phase I sustained the improvement during the phase II (52%). Predictors of greater T2T improvement included having only rheumatologist providers at the site, academic affiliation of the site, having fewer providers per site, and the rheumatologist provider being a trainee. CONCLUSION: Improvement in T2T remained relatively stable over a postintervention period.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a 2-phase randomized controlled trial of a learning collaborative to facilitate implementation of treat-to-target (T2T) to manage rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We found substantial improvement in implementation of T2T in phase I. Here, we report on a second 9 months (phase II), where we examined the maintenance of response in phase I and predictors of greater improvement in T2T adherence. METHODS: We recruited patients from 11 rheumatology sites and randomized them to either receive the learning collaborative during phase I or to a wait-list control group that received the learning collaborative intervention during phase II. The outcome was change in T2T implementation score (0-100, where 100 = best) from pre- to postintervention. The T2T implementation score was defined as a percent of components documented in visit notes. Analyses examined the extent to which the phase-I intervention teams sustained improvement in T2T, as well as predictors of T2T improvement. RESULTS: The analysis included 636 RApatients. At baseline, the mean T2T implementation score was 11% in phase I intervention sites and 13% in phase II sites. After the intervention, T2T implementation score improved to 57% in the phase I intervention sites and to 58% in the phase II sites. Intervention sites from phase I sustained the improvement during the phase II (52%). Predictors of greater T2T improvement included having only rheumatologist providers at the site, academic affiliation of the site, having fewer providers per site, and the rheumatologist provider being a trainee. CONCLUSION: Improvement in T2T remained relatively stable over a postintervention period.
Authors: Leslie R Harrold; J Timothy Harrington; Jeffrey R Curtis; Daniel E Furst; Mary Jane Bentley; Ying Shan; George Reed; Joel Kremer; Jeffrey D Greenberg Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2012-03
Authors: Jaclyn Anderson; Liron Caplan; Jinoos Yazdany; Mark L Robbins; Tuhina Neogi; Kaleb Michaud; Kenneth G Saag; James R O'Dell; Salahuddin Kazi Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Jasvinder A Singh; Daniel E Furst; Aseem Bharat; Jeffrey R Curtis; Arthur F Kavanaugh; Joel M Kremer; Larry W Moreland; James O'Dell; Kevin L Winthrop; Timothy Beukelman; S Louis Bridges; W Winn Chatham; Harold E Paulus; Maria Suarez-Almazor; Claire Bombardier; Maxime Dougados; Dinesh Khanna; Charles M King; Amye L Leong; Eric L Matteson; John T Schousboe; Eileen Moynihan; Karen S Kolba; Archana Jain; Elizabeth R Volkmann; Harsh Agrawal; Sangmee Bae; Amy S Mudano; Nivedita M Patkar; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Bruce E Landon; Ira B Wilson; Keith McInnes; Mary Beth Landrum; Lisa Hirschhorn; Peter V Marsden; David Gustafson; Paul D Cleary Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kathleen Tymms; Jane Zochling; James Scott; Paul Bird; Simon Burnet; Julien de Jager; Hedley Griffiths; Dave Nicholls; Lynden Roberts; Mark Arnold; Geoffrey Littlejohn Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: S M M Verstappen; J W G Jacobs; M J van der Veen; A H M Heurkens; Y Schenk; E J ter Borg; A A M Blaauw; J W J Bijlsma Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Josef S Smolen; Daniel Aletaha; Johannes W J Bijlsma; Ferdinand C Breedveld; Dimitrios Boumpas; Gerd Burmester; Bernard Combe; Maurizio Cutolo; Maarten de Wit; Maxime Dougados; Paul Emery; Alan Gibofsky; Juan Jesus Gomez-Reino; Boulos Haraoui; Joachim Kalden; Edward C Keystone; Tore K Kvien; Iain McInnes; Emilio Martin-Mola; Carlomaurizio Montecucco; Monika Schoels; Désirée van der Heijde; Desirée van der Heijde Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Daniel H Solomon; Zhi Yu; Jeffrey N Katz; Asaf Bitton; Cassandra Corrigan; Liana Fraenkel; Leslie R Harrold; Josef S Smolen; Elena Losina; Bing Lu Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Daniel H Solomon; Theodore Pincus; Nancy A Shadick; Jacklyn Stratton; Jack Ellrodt; Leah Santacroce; Jeffrey N Katz; Josef S Smolen Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 5.178