Rheumatoid Arthritis: Li LC

Li LC. · No affiliation provided · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17696282 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Li LC, Badley EM, MacKay C, Mosher D, Jamal SW, Jones A, Bombardier C. · University of British Columbia and Arthritis Research Centre of Canada, 895 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18668611 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Li LC, Iversen MD. · Ottawa Health Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. · Curr Opin Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15711231 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rehabilitation, including physical therapy and occupational therapy, complements drug therapy in the management of symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Approximately 26% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis receive a referral for rehabilitation by rheumatologists. This review summarizes findings on the effectiveness and economic outcomes of physical therapy and occupational therapy in managing rheumatoid arthritis. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies evaluating the outcomes of various service delivery models for physical therapy and occupational therapy demonstrate improvements, especially in physical function, among people with rheumatoid arthritis. A recent pilot study examining the primary therapist model also suggests that the primary therapist model may be a viable option for delivering rheumatoid arthritis rehabilitation services. However, the evidence on other alternative models such as the physical therapy/occupational therapy practitioner model is limited. Only a few economic evaluations have been performed, and among those, none examine the cost-effectiveness of different service models. SUMMARY: Systematically interpreting the findings of service delivery models in rehabilitation is challenging because of the wide range of interventions and outcome measures used. A thorough understanding of the value of different rehabilitation models will require the guidance of a sound evaluation framework. Future clinical trials should consider including a component for evaluating cost-effectiveness. Such knowledge can contribute to evidence-informed resource allocation.

Li LC. · Ottawa Health Research Institute and The Arthritis Society, Ontario Division, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4E9, Canada. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #15660459 No free full text.

Abstract: Nonpharmacological treatments, including physiotherapy and occupational therapy, have assumed a complementary role to drug therapy in managing inflammatory arthritis. Clinicians and researchers are facing 3 major challenges concerning the use of these treatments. First, strong evidence is only present in a few nonpharmacological interventions, such as exercise, patient education, and low level laser in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The evidence on the majority of interventions is, however, weak or inconclusive. Second, knowledge is lacking on the elements associated with models of nonpharmacological care. The multidisciplinary team approach has been viewed as the standard for arthritis treatment; however, the team structure and the communication style among team members vary around the world. The influence of these elements on treatment success remains unclear. Finally, disparities in knowledge management and translation in nonpharmacological research have hindered the clinical use of these treatments and the growth of research in the field. To address the challenges, the author is recommending 4 research priorities for nonpharmacological treatments: 1. Evaluation of less well-studied interventions; 2. Understanding the relationships among rehabilitation-related variables and disability; 3. Development and evaluation of innovative care models; and 4. Design and evaluation of knowledge transfer innovations.

Vliet Vlieland TP, Li LC, MacKay C, Badley EM. · Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden, The Netherlands. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16960951 No free full text.

Abstract: Multidisciplinary team care, defined as care provided by a group of health professionals from various disciplines, has been widely used in arthritis management since the 1950s. Its effectiveness in comparison with regular outpatient care has mainly been established in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Recent studies have shown that similar outcomes can be achieved in patients with RA at lower costs using care provided by a clinical nurse specialist. These latter findings suggest that the active components of the multidisciplinary team care model may not be related to the number or professional backgrounds of the health professionals involved, nor with their physical proximity, but rather to the provider's skills in rheumatology and the coordination of services. Because many patients with arthritis have healthcare needs that are not met through treatment by the rheumatologist alone and since traditional multidisciplinary team care in many countries is unavailable or may be undesirable in specific situations, the development and evaluation of alternative, comprehensive models of care delivery is recommended.

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, Maetzel A, Pencharz JN, Maguire L, Bombardier C, Anonymous00064. · University Health Network and The Arthritis Society, Ontario Division, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #15077260 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of nonpharmacologic treatment by patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients were recruited from physicians' offices in Ontario, Canada. All participants completed questionnaires that asked about their health status, use of medications and nonpharmacologic treatments, and use of health care resources. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients with OA and 253 patients with RA completed the survey on the use of nonpharmacologic treatment. Only 73% of patients with OA had been told to use nonpharmacologic modalities, but 98.8% had tried at least 1 type of treatment. About 97% of those with RA had been told to use and had tried at least 1 type of treatment. Most patients continued to use a treatment once they had tried it. CONCLUSION: The use of nonpharmacologic modalities is common among patients with arthritis. It is important that clinicians address with their patients the appropriate use of and barriers to continuing these treatments.

Maetzel A, Li LC, Pencharz J, Tomlinson G, Bombardier C, Anonymous00284. · Division of Clinical Decision Making and Health Care Research, University Health Network Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #15020333 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the economic burden to society incurred by patients with RA, OA, or high blood pressure (HBP) in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Consecutive subjects recruited by 52 rheumatologists (RA) and 76 family physicians (OA and HBP) were interviewed at baseline and 3 months. Information was collected on demographics, health status, and any comorbidities. A detailed, open ended resource utilisation questionnaire inquired about the use of medical and non-medical resources and patient and care giver losses of time and related expenses. Annual costs were derived as recommended by national costing guidelines and converted to American dollars (year 2000). Statistical comparisons were made using ordinary least squares regression on raw and log transformed costs, and generalised linear modelling with adjustment for age, sex, educational attainment, and presence of comorbidities. RESULTS: Baseline and 3 month interviews were completed by 253/292 (86.6%) patients with RA and 473/585 (80.9%) patients with OA and/or HBP. Baseline and total annual disease costs for RA (n = 253), OA and HBP (n = 191), OA (n = 140), and HBP (n = 142), respectively, were $9300, $4900, $5700, and US$3900. Indirect costs related to RA were up to five times higher than indirect costs incurred by patients with OA or HBP, or both. The presence of comorbidities was associated with disease costs for all diagnoses, cancelling out potential effects of age or sex. CONCLUSION: The economic burden incurred by RA significantly exceeds that related to OA and HBP, while differences between patients with a diagnosis of OA without HBP or a diagnosis of HBP alone were non-significant, largely owing to the influence of comorbidities.

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.