OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of primary lipid screening among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and compare it with those among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and patients with neither RA nor DM, and to assess whether primary lipid screening varied according to the health care provider (rheumatologist versus non-rheumatologist). METHODS: We analyzed claims data from US private and public health plans from 2006-2010. Eligibility requirements included continuous medical and pharmacy coverage for ≥12 months (baseline period) and >2 physician diagnoses and relevant medications to define RA, DM, RA and DM, or neither condition. Among the 330,695 eligible participants, we calculated the proportion with a lipid profile ordered during the 2 years following baseline. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the probability of hyperlipidemia screening in participants with RA according to provider specialty. RESULTS: More than half of the patients were ages 41-71 years. Among patients with RA (n = 12,182), DM (n = 62,834), RA and DM (n = 1,082), and those who did not have either condition (n = 167,811), the proportion screened for hyperlipidemia was 37%, 60%, 55%, and 41%, respectively. Patients with RA who visited a rheumatologist and a non-rheumatology clinician during follow-up had a 55% (95% confidence interval 1.36-1.78) higher screening probability than those who only visited a rheumatologist. CONCLUSION: Primary lipid screening was suboptimal among patients with RA. It was also lower for patients with DM and minimally different from the general population. Screening was higher for RA patients who received care from both a rheumatologist and a non-rheumatologist (e.g., primary care physician).
OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of primary lipid screening among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and compare it with those among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and patients with neither RA nor DM, and to assess whether primary lipid screening varied according to the health care provider (rheumatologist versus non-rheumatologist). METHODS: We analyzed claims data from US private and public health plans from 2006-2010. Eligibility requirements included continuous medical and pharmacy coverage for ≥12 months (baseline period) and >2 physician diagnoses and relevant medications to define RA, DM, RA and DM, or neither condition. Among the 330,695 eligible participants, we calculated the proportion with a lipid profile ordered during the 2 years following baseline. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the probability of hyperlipidemia screening in participants with RA according to provider specialty. RESULTS: More than half of the patients were ages 41-71 years. Among patients with RA (n = 12,182), DM (n = 62,834), RA and DM (n = 1,082), and those who did not have either condition (n = 167,811), the proportion screened for hyperlipidemia was 37%, 60%, 55%, and 41%, respectively. Patients with RA who visited a rheumatologist and a non-rheumatology clinician during follow-up had a 55% (95% confidence interval 1.36-1.78) higher screening probability than those who only visited a rheumatologist. CONCLUSION: Primary lipid screening was suboptimal among patients with RA. It was also lower for patients with DM and minimally different from the general population. Screening was higher for RApatients who received care from both a rheumatologist and a non-rheumatologist (e.g., primary care physician).
Authors: Daniel H Solomon; Joel Kremer; Jeffrey R Curtis; Marc C Hochberg; George Reed; Peter Tsao; Michael E Farkouh; Soko Setoguchi; Jeffrey D Greenberg Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Miguel A Gonzalez-Gay; Carlos Gonzalez-Juanatey; Maria J Lopez-Diaz; Angela Piñeiro; Carlos Garcia-Porrua; Jose A Miranda-Filloy; William E R Ollier; Javier Martin; Javier Llorca Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2007-02-15
Authors: Julia M Weijers; Sanne A A Rongen-van Dartel; Dan M G M F Hoevenaars; Max Rubens; Marlies E J L Hulscher; Piet L C M van Riel Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Iris Navarro-Millán; Shuo Yang; Scott L DuVall; Lang Chen; John Baddley; Grant W Cannon; Elizabeth S Delzell; Jie Zhang; Monika M Safford; Nivedita M Patkar; Ted R Mikuls; Jasvinder A Singh; Jeffrey R Curtis Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Evo Alemao; Helene Cawston; Francois Bourhis; Maiwenn Al; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Katherine P Liao; Daniel H Solomon Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Jeffrey R Curtis; Fenglong Xie; Cynthia S Crowson; Eric H Sasso; Elena Hitraya; Cheryl L Chin; Richard D Bamford; Rotem Ben-Shachar; Alexander Gutin; Darl D Flake; Brent Mabey; Jerry S Lanchbury Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Iris Navarro-Millán; Sarah R Young; Sally Shurbaji; Chastity McDavid; Anna Cornelius-Schecter; Bernadette Johnson; Andrea L Cherrington; Liana Fraenkel; Susan M Goodman; Jeffrey R Curtis; Shilpa Venkatachalam; Monika M Safford Journal: BMC Rheumatol Date: 2020-06-02
Authors: Iris Navarro-Millán; Anna Cornelius-Schecter; Ronan J O'Beirne; Melanie S Morris; Geyanne E Lui; Susan M Goodman; Andrea L Cherrington; Liana Fraenkel; Jeffrey R Curtis; Monika M Safford Journal: BMC Rheumatol Date: 2020-03-05