Rheumatoid Arthritis: Coyte PC

Li LC, Maetzel A, Davis AM, Lineker SC, Bombardier C, Coyte PC. · Ottawa Health Research Institute, and Arthritis Research Society of Canada, 895 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16739183 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) of services from a primary therapist compared with traditional physical therapists and/or occupational therapists for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from the societal perspective. METHODS: Patients with RA were randomly assigned to the primary therapist model (PTM) or traditional treatment model (TTM) for approximately 6 weeks of rehabilitation treatment. Health outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), measured with the EuroQol instrument at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months. Direct and indirect costs, including visits to health professionals, use of investigative tests, hospital visits, use of medications, purchases of adaptive aids, and productivity losses incurred by patients and their caregivers, were collected monthly. RESULTS: Of 144 consenting patients, 111 remained in the study after the baseline assessment: 63 PTM (87.3% women, mean age 54.2 years, disease duration 10.6 years) and 48 TTM (79.2% women, mean age 56.8 years, disease duration 13.2 years). From a societal perspective, PTM generated higher QALYs (mean +/- SD 0.068 +/- 0.22) and resulted in a higher mean cost ($6,848 Canadian, interquartile range [IQR] $1,984-$9,320) compared with TTM (mean +/- SD QALY -0.017 +/- 0.24; mean costs $6,266, IQR $1,938-$10,194) in 6 months, although differences were not statistically significant. The estimated ICE ratio was $13,700 per QALY gained (95% nonparametric confidence interval -$73,500, $230,000). CONCLUSION: The PTM has potential to be an alternative to traditional physical/occupational therapy, although it is premature to recommend widespread use of this model in other regions. Further research should focus on strategies to reduce costs of the model and assess the long-term economic consequences in managing RA and other rheumatologic conditions.

Li LC, Davis AM, Lineker SC, Coyte PC, Bombardier C. · Ottawa Health Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, 1053 Carling Avenue, Administration Building Rm. #2-014, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4E9, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16463410 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the primary therapist model (PTM), provided by a single rheumatology-trained primary therapist, with the traditional treatment model (TTM), provided by a physical therapy (PT) and/or occupational therapy (OT) generalist, for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Eligible patients were adults requiring rehabilitation treatment who had not received PT/OT in the past 2 years. Participants were randomized to the PTM or TTM group. The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of clinical responders who experienced a > or =20% improvement in 2 of the following measures from baseline to 6 months: Health Assessment Questionnaire, pain visual analog scale, and Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit RA Knowledge Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 144 consenting patients, 33 (10 PTM participants, 23 TTM participants) dropped out without completing any followup assessment, leaving 111 for analysis (63 PTM participants, 48 TTM participants). The majority were women (PTM 87.3%, TTM 79.2%), with a mean age of 54.2 years and 56.8 years for the PTM and TTM groups, respectively. Average disease duration was 10.6 years and 13.2 years for each group, respectively. At 6 months, 44.4% of patients in the PTM group were clinical responders versus 18.8% in the TTM group (chi(2) = 8.09, P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Compared with the TTM, the PTM was associated with better outcomes in patients with RA. The results, however, should be interpreted with caution due to the high dropout rate in the TTM group.

Li LC, Coyte PC, Lineker SC, Wood H, Renahan M. · Arthritis & Autoimmunity Research Centre, University Health Network, Consultation and Rehabilitation Service, Arthritis Society, Ontario Division, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Arthritis Care Res. · Pubmed #14635272 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the difference in costs of home-based versus clinic-based physiotherapy (PT) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from a societal perspective. METHODS: A cost analysis was performed using statistical and financial information provided by The Arthritis Society, Ontario Division, from April 1, 1997 to March 30, 1998. Cost estimates included treatment costs and costs borne by patients. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the effect of altering the valuation of treatment time and patient employment status. RESULTS: Total costs per case were $210.87 for the home setting, and $183.87 for the clinic setting when patients were employed. Sensitivity analysis did not change the trend of the results. The estimated start-up costs for an arthritis clinic were between $302.90 and $652.40. From the perspective of the health care system, these costs would be recovered after serving 4 to 8 RA patients at a clinic. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that ambulatory PT care is less costly than home-based services for people with RA based on The Arthritis Society model. Further studies should be conducted to examine the effectiveness and the possible adverse consequences of alternative settings for service delivery.

Coyte PC, Hawker G, Croxford R, Wright JG. · Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · J Bone Joint Surg Am. · Pubmed #10391542 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The present study was designed to measure the longevity of knee replacements and to assess the determinants of revision knee replacements in order to enhance the potential for informed decision-making. METHODS: Data on all hospitalizations for knee replacement that occurred in Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 1984, and March 31, 1991, were acquired. To calculate the rates of revision knee replacement, two algorithms were developed: one distinguished primary knee replacements from revision knee replacements, and the second linked revision knee replacements to primary knee replacements. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess survivorship (absence of a revision) for primary knee replacement. A proportional-hazards regression model was estimated to assess the role of independent variables on the survival of primary knee replacements. RESULTS: During the period of the study, 7.0 percent (1301) of 18,530 knee replacements were classified as revisions. Significant differences were identified between hospitalizations for primary and revision knee replacements in terms of the patient and hospital characteristics. Patients who were more than fifty-five years old, lived in a rural area, or had a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis had a significantly (p < 0.05) longer duration before revision than did other patients. Primary knee replacements performed in a teaching or specialty hospital had a significantly (p < 0.05) shorter duration before revision than did those performed in a non-teaching hospital. The long-term rates of revision were uniformly low. Estimates of the proportion of knee replacements that would need to be revised within seven years ranged from a low of 4.3 percent, with use of the algorithm for the longest time to revision, to a high of 8.0 percent, with use of the algorithm for the shortest time to revision. CONCLUSIONS: Revision of a primary knee replacement was a rare event that depended on a patient's age, gender, and place of residence as well as on the hospital where the primary knee replacement was performed. Estimates of the rates of revision knee replacement after almost seven years ranged from a low of 4.3 percent to a high of 8.0 percent.