No abstract

Objective Frailty is associated with disability and mortality independent of age. Although studies have evaluated frailty in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), information on the prevalence of frailty in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is limited. We aimed to determine the prevalence of frailty in AS and PsA and to evaluate whether characteristics known to be associated with frailty, including anxiety, differ among these three types of inflammatory arthritis. Methods We performed a cross sectional study of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with AS, PsA, or RA enrolled in 2014. We operationalized frailty using a validated claims‐based frailty index. We also explored the prevalence of frailty among CMS beneficiaries younger than age 65 years with work disability, a younger population that also may be at risk of frailty. Results The prevalence of frailty in beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with AS and PsA was 45.2% and 46.7%, respectively, significantly lower than in RA (65.9%, P < 0.05). The prevalence of frailty in beneficiaries less than 65 years old was much lower overall, though still highest in RA; 11.7%, 4.4%, and 7.0% in RA, AS, and PsA, respectively (P < 0.05). Anxiety was significantly associated with frailty in subjects of all ages, particularly among those less than 65 years old (P < 0.05). Conclusion Almost half of beneficiaries with AS or PsA aged 65 years old or older were frail, higher than in younger disabled beneficiaries. Further studies are needed to understand the risks of developing frailty in these diseases. Frailty was associated with anxiety, particularly in the younger age groups.

No abstract

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of death among people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with an estimated increased risk of 50–60% compared to the general population. Lipid-lowering strategies have been shown to lower CVD risk significantly in people with RA and hyperlipidemia. Thus, CVD risk assessment has an important role to play in reducing CVD among people with RA. Yet currently only 37 to 45% of this population are receiving primary lipids screening. This paper describes the CArdiovascular Risk assEssment for RA (CARE RA) intervention, which is designed to address this issue. CARE RA is a peer coach intervention, that is, an intervention in which a person with RA coaches another person with RA, which is designed to educate people with RA about the relation between RA and CVD risk and to help them obtain evidence-based CVD risk assessment and treatment. Methods This is an open-label pilot study that will test if the participants assigned to complete the CARE RA curriculum with a peer coach will receive a cardiovascular risk assessment more frequently compared to those that complete the CARE RA curriculum by themselves. The CARE RA intervention is guided by Social Cognitive Theory. Participants in the peer coach intervention arm will receive the assistance of a peer coach who will call the participants once a week for 5 weeks to go over the CARE RA curriculum and train them on how to obtain CVD risk assessment. The control arm will complete the CARE RA curriculum without any assistance. Participants will be randomized 1:1 either to the control arm or to the peer coach intervention arm. The primary outcome is a participant’s having a CVD risk assessment or initiating a statin, if indicated. Secondary outcomes include patient activation and RA medication adherence. The RE-AIM implementation framework guides the implementation and evaluation of the intervention. Discussion This pilot study will test the feasibility of the peer coach intervention in anticipation of a larger trial. CARE RA pioneers the use of peer coaches to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based treatment guidelines among people with RA. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04488497. Registered on July 28, 2020.

Background: Despite high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, screening and treatment of hyperlipidemia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is suboptimal. We asked primary care physicians (PCPs) and rheumatologists to identify barriers to screening and treatment for hyperlipidemia among patients with RA. Methods: We recruited rheumatologists and PCPs nationally to participate in separate moderated structured group teleconference discussions using the nominal group technique. Participants in each group generated lists of barriers to screening and treatment for hyperlipidemia in patients with RA, then each selected the three most important barriers from this list. The resulting barriers were organized into physician-, patient-and system-level barriers, informed by the socioecological framework. Results: Twenty-seven rheumatologists participated in a total of 3 groups (group size ranged from 7 to 11) and twenty PCPs participated in a total of 3 groups (group size ranged from 4 to 9). Rheumatologists prioritized physician level barriers (e.g. 'ownership' of hyperlipidemia screening and treatment), whereas PCPs prioritized patient-level barriers (e.g. complexity of RA and its treatments). Conclusion: Rheumatologists were conflicted about whether treatment of CVD risk among patients with RA should fall within the role of the rheumatologist or the PCP. All participating PCPs agreed that CVD risk reduction was within their role. Factors that influenced PCPs' decisions for screening and treatment for CVD risk in patients with RA were mainly related to their concern about how treatment for CVD risk could influence RA symptomatology (myalgia from statins) or how inflammation from RA and RA medications influences lipid profiles.