0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Cost-effectiveness of Adding Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Rheumatoid Arthritis Management FREE

Lisa G. Suter, MD; Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH; R. Scott Braithwaite, MD, MS
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Section of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven (Drs Suter and Fraenkel); and Section on Value and Comparative Effectiveness, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York (Dr Braithwaite).


Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):657-667. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.115.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Early, aggressive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves outcomes but confers increased risk. Risk stratification to target aggressive treatment of high-risk individuals with early RA is considered important to optimize outcomes while minimizing clinical and monetary costs. Some advocate the addition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to standard RA risk stratification with clinical markers for patients early in the disease course. Our objective was to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of adding MRI to standard risk stratification in early RA.

Methods  Using a decision analysis model of standard risk stratification with or without MRI, followed by escalated standard treatment protocols based on treatment response, we estimated 1-year and lifetime quality-adjusted life-years, RA-related costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (with MRI vs without MRI) for RA patients with fewer than 12 months of disease and no baseline radiographic erosions. Inputs were derived from the published literature. We assumed a societal perspective with 3.0% discounting.

Results  One-year and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adding MRI to standard testing were $204 103 and $167 783 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, model results were insensitive to plausible ranges for every variable except MRI specificity, which published data suggest is below the threshold for MRI cost-effectiveness. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, most simulations produced lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, a commonly cited threshold.

Conclusion  Under plausible clinical conditions, adding MRI is not cost-effective compared with standard risk stratification in early-RA patients.

Figures in this Article

Affecting 1.5 million Americans during their most productive years, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has a mean age at onset of between 45 and 55 years, depending on sex and ethnicity, and results in an excess of $19.3 billion in direct and indirect costs each year.15 Early aggressive treatment has been shown to improve outcomes and increase clinical remission6; however, early RA is also more likely to remit spontaneously,7 and aggressive treatment confers clinical and financial costs.8 Therefore, accurate risk stratification of early-RA patients is important to enable initiation of aggressive treatment in those at high risk for developing severe disease while sparing those at reduced risk from unnecessary treatment.

Standard risk stratification tools include clinical, laboratory, and radiographic evidence of disease activity and/or damage. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides supplementary information to standard risk stratification.9,10 Magnetic resonance imaging identifies bone erosions earlier than conventional radiography9 and can detect bone marrow edema and synovitis, possible erosion precursors.11,12 Therefore, MRI has been proposed as a more sensitive method of risk-stratifying RA patients to optimize treatment.13 However, few studies, to our knowledge, have directly compared it to standard risk-stratification tools. No randomized clinical trials, to our knowledge, have sought to determine the optimal role for MRI in the management of early RA. It would be preferential to use MRI only in scenarios that offer detectable clinical benefit at an acceptable cost.

It is unlikely that a trial to define the optimal risk-stratification approach could be undertaken because too many plausible MRI specifications and RA therapeutics exist to make exhaustive testing feasible, it would be difficult to enroll sufficient early-RA patients, and it would require many years of follow-up to capture clinically significant outcome differences. Decision analytic methods provide a rational, evidence-based, and updatable framework to inform clinical, research, and policy decisions. Decision analysis also enables assessment of giving aggressive treatment to all patients at baseline (ie, no risk stratification), given the benefits of early treatment and reduced sensitivity and specificity of risk stratification in early RA. Our objective was to determine the incremental benefits and costs of adding MRI to standard risk stratification in early RA and to compare each of these strategies to a no-risk stratification strategy (“treat all”).

We created a decision analysis model to examine differential outcomes achieved using standard risk stratification only vs with MRI vs a “treat all” strategy. Ours was a hypothetical population of individuals with recent-onset RA (≤12 months) and no baseline radiographic erosions (eAppendix).

MODEL STRUCTURE AND OUTPUT

The hypothetical patient population contained individuals at high risk for developing severe disease (ie, those who would develop plain radiographic erosions within 12 months, known as having a poor prognosis) and those at lower risk (ie, those who would not develop radiographic erosions, labeled as having a good prognosis). Risk stratification, using standard tests (ie, rheumatoid factor and/or anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positivity and disease activity assessment) only or with MRI, was used to discriminate between poor-prognosis and good-prognosis patients (Figure 1; “risk stratification”). On the basis of the results of testing, a treatment regimen was assigned. Treatment regimens in the model consisted of 3 tiers that represent accepted clinical practice in the United States and are consistent with recent practice guidelines14: optimized methotrexate monotherapy, escalated as needed; combination therapy of 2 or more traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (eg, triple therapy with hydroxychloroquine sulfate, sulfasalazine, and methotrexate)15; and biologic therapy (in combination with methotrexate). In response to initial risk stratification, patients could receive tier 1 (negative test result) or tier 2 (positive test result) therapy. Lack of treatment response led to treatment escalation (from tier 1 to 2 and tier 2 to 3). To explore the value of risk stratification in and of itself, we included the “treat all” strategy, in which we eliminated all risk stratification (ie, all patients received tier 2 therapy at baseline without testing having been performed).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Model decision trees. Risk-stratification tree represents risk stratification (standard testing with and without magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and “treat all” arms. Positive test result leads to baseline combination therapy. Treatment tree represents treatment regimens including optimized methotrexate monotherapy, escalated as needed; combination therapy of 2 or more traditional disease-modifying drugs (eg, triple therapy with hydroxychloroquine sulfate, sulfasalazine, and methotrexate); and biologic therapy (with methotrexate). Lack of treatment response (see text) leads to treatment escalation (from tier 1 to 2 and tier 2 to 3). ACR50 indicates American College of Rheumatology criteria for a 50% improvement in disease activity; RA, rheumatoid arthritis.

Graphic Jump Location

Patients were assessed at 3-month intervals for survival, drug toxic effects, disease activity, and treatment response for the initial 12 months (Figure 1; “treatment”) based on data suggesting that clinical and radiographic progression is evident after 12 months.16 Drug-related adverse events (AEs) were divided into mild, which conferred a small decrement in quality of life but no associated costs or mortality effect, and moderate to severe (eg, infections requiring antibiotic therapy and/or hospitalization), which conferred more substantial but reversible decrements in quality of life, survival, and associated direct and indirect costs. To reflect the response of the physician to severe AEs, treatment was withheld for individuals experiencing moderate to severe AEs during the next 3-month interval, resulting in decreased treatment-related costs and clinical response at the next assessment.

Our model assessed disease activity at 3-month intervals to determine whether the patient had achieved remission. In the base case, remission was defined as a Disease Activity Score of 2.6 or less.17,18 Although it does not represent a complete lack of disease activity, this level of activity would likely prompt continuation of the existing treatment rather than escalation. Alternative definitions were explored in sensitivity analyses. For individuals whose conditions did not achieve remission, we assessed the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for a 50% improvement in disease activity (ACR50). Individuals whose conditions showed an ACR50 response were maintained with the same treatment, and those whose conditions did not show an ACR50 response were advanced to the next treatment tier.

Total (direct and indirect) RA-related costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were tallied at the end of 12 months. These values were then extrapolated to estimate lifetime costs and quality of life using published life tables. Lifetime estimates considered the disease activity level (and associated productivity cost) and treatment assignment at the end of the first year. Poor-prognosis RA conferred an additional cost to allow for the inclusion of greater anticipated direct costs over time. Individuals with no treatment response at the end of 12 months of treatment were assumed to obtain an ACR50 response during the following cycle.

TARGET POPULATION AND DATA SOURCES

The hypothetical patient population consisted of individuals 45 years old with a new diagnosis of RA per the ACR 1987 consensus criteria of 12 months or less of disease and no evidence of plain radiographic erosions at baseline. We searched the published literature for the following input variables: RA-related costs, mortality, treatment response, and AE rates for each treatment tier, MRI and standard risk stratification sensitivity and specificity, and quality of life. Input assumptions for the base case analysis and ranges used in sensitivity analyses are listed in Table 1, described herein, and detailed in the eAppendix. Wherever plausible equivalent options existed for input assumptions, we selected those most favorable for MRI to evaluate a best-case scenario for MRI. To acknowledge limitations in available input data and ensure that our analysis captured the full spectrum of possible clinical values, we used estimate ranges in excess of published values for sensitivity analyses.

TREATMENT RESPONSE AND TREATMENT-RELATED AEs

Treatment responses were derived from the published literature and stratified by poor-prognosis vs good-prognosis RA, treatment duration (3 vs 6 or more months of treatment duration), and the need to temporarily withhold treatment after a severe AE. To use the broadest plausible ranges for sensitivity analyses, AE rates were drawn from randomized clinical trials and prospective, observational cohort studies. Mild AE estimates included AEs described as “mild” and “any AE” estimates. Moderate to severe AE estimates included published data reported for “serious AEs” or “serious infections.”

PROGNOSTIC TEST CHARACTERISTICS

Performance characteristics for standard risk stratification and MRI were derived from the published literature. We defined sensitivity and specificity as the ability of either testing approach to predict the likelihood of radiographic progression at 12 months.

QUALITY OF LIFE

The quality-of-life estimates in the model represented remitted RA, moderate to severe disease activity, and a partially treated state (ie, ACR50 response). To reflect our definition of remission (Disease Activity Score ≤2.6), we assumed a utility score of 0.95 for remitted RA and varied this assumption in sensitivity analyses.

COSTS

All costs were converted to 2010 US dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for March 2010.81 Costs were assigned from the societal perspective and, where available, drawn from the published literature. Additional cost estimates were derived from Medicare reimbursement data and 2006 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data.58

Productivity costs related to RA disability and work losses were derived from the published literature6873 using a fractional estimate of the US national mean hourly wage for nonfarm workers and assuming a 40-hour workweek, 50 weeks per year. A broad range of productivity costs were tested in sensitivity analyses, including no RA-related and/or AE-related productivity costs.

MORTALITY

We used standard life table methods derived from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2007 National Vital Statistics Report78 to estimate base mortality rates by age. The mortality increment due to moderate to severe AEs was derived from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data for in-hospital deaths related to infections and/or complications of medical treatment.58 Alternative assumptions were considered in sensitivity analyses.

MODEL VALIDATION

Internal validation was achieved using quantitative and graphic representation of 1-way sensitivity analyses of all input variables across extreme ranges in which the expected outcome was obvious. External validity was demonstrated by comparing the model output to published data; our model estimated the mean unadjusted life expectancy for the populations to be 35.6 years compared with published estimates of 36.9 years.79

BASE ANALYSIS

In the base analysis, we estimated 12-month and lifetime total RA-related costs and QALYs using the input assumptions in Table 1. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (in dollars per QALY gained) were calculated for all strategies compared with standard risk stratification only. The lifetime analysis used a 3.0% discount rate for costs and quality of life. Further details of the analysis are presented in the eAppendix.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

One-way sensitivity analyses of all input variables were performed across the broadest range of clinically possible estimates for the 12-month and lifetime models. Additional multiway and threshold analyses (to determine when the favored strategy changed) were performed for key variables identified in 1-way analyses. Running the decision model as a Monte Carlo simulation, we performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, which traces the experiences (and thus costs and quality of life) of 10 000 hypothetical individuals through the model, and the values for each input variable were simultaneously varied using predefined distributions. Because the data for this model were limited and to provide the most conservative analysis, we report the results using uniform distributions for each variable (see the eAppendix for additional sensitivity analyses using alternative distributions). In addition, we adjusted our cost related to moderate to severe AEs using a cost-to-charge ratio (eAppendix).

BASE ANALYSIS

In a hypothetical population of RA patients with no baseline radiographic erosions and disease duration of less than 12 months, estimated 1-year and lifetime ICERs for the MRI strategy compared with the standard risk stratification only were $204 103 and $167 783 per QALY gained, respectively.

One-year and lifetime RA-related costs, QALYs, and ICERs for standard risk stratification only and with MRI and the “treat all” strategy are listed in Table 2. Herein, we report the results of sensitivity analyses for the lifetime analysis; results of the 12-month analyses are provided in the eAppendix.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. One-Year and Lifetime RA-Related Costs, QALYs, and ICERs for All Risk-Assessment Armsa
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Model results were insensitive to wide variation in input variables. In 1-way sensitivity analyses (eAppendix), only 5 of 70 variables produced ICERs below the commonly accepted threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained82: the underlying prevalence of poor-prognosis RA in the population, standard testing sensitivity, standard testing specificity, MRI specificity, and the probability of remission after 6 months of methotrexate monotherapy. Threshold values in which the favored strategy (ie, the particular strategy producing ICERs <$100 000 per QALY gained) changed for each of these 5 variables are illustrated in Figure 2. Magnetic resonance imaging was favored over standard risk stratification only and the “treat all” scenario when the probability of remission after 6 months of methotrexate monotherapy was 21% to 23% (<21%, “treat all” favored; >23%, standard risk stratification favored); standard risk stratification sensitivity and specificity were less than 59% and less than 62%, respectively; the specificity of MRI plus standard risk stratification was 72% or higher; or the underlying prevalence of poor-prognosis RA in the population was 61% to 77%. The “treat all” strategy was favored compared with that of adding MRI when the probability of remission after 6 months of methotrexate monotherapy was less than 21% or the prevalence of poor-prognosis RA was greater than 77%. Data1925 suggest that the prevalence of poor-prognosis RA ranges from 1% to 34%. Therefore, none of these thresholds represents a clinically probable or consistently achievable value.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Threshold analysis for variables to which model output was sensitive in 1-way sensitivity analysis. Each horizontal bar represents the complete range of values for the variables listed on the vertical axis. Shaded areas represent those values that produced favorable (ie, <$100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained) for a given strategy. For example, when the probability of remission after 6 months of methotrexate therapy is greater than 23.0%, standard risk stratification only is favored over the other strategies. Arrows indicate base case assumptions. MRI indicates magnetic resonance imaging; RA, rheumatoid arthritis.

Graphic Jump Location

The lifetime model output was insensitive to simultaneously varying the definition of remission, occurrence of AEs, costs, and/or quality-of-life assumptions. The MRI strategy produced favorable ICERs when MRI sensitivity approached 100%, even if MRI specificity was lower than that of standard risk stratification only (Figure 3). Further sensitivity analyses are reported in the eAppendix.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Graphic depiction of test performance assumptions under which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus standard risk stratification is the favored strategy (gray volume). Axes display plausible ranges for MRI sensitivity (horizontal) and specificity (depth) and standard risk stratification sensitivity (vertical, top) and specificity (vertical, bottom). Gray volume represents assumptions under which MRI is favored (ie, yields incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$100 000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained [in dollars per quality-adjusted life-years gained]); the remaining space reflects assumptions under which standard risk stratification only is preferred.

Graphic Jump Location
PROBABILISTIC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of lifetime RA-related costs and QALYs yielded a mean ICER estimate of $302 251 (95% interpercentile range, $17 044-$697 006) per QALY gained for MRI compared with standard risk stratification only (Figure 4 and Figure 5), excluding the 11.1% of simulations in which MRI produced lower QALY estimates at a greater cost than standard risk stratification only. Most runs (83% and 79%) yielded ICERs (for adding MRI compared with standard risk stratification only) greater than commonly used willingness-to-pay thresholds (ie, $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY gained, respectively). We explored a wide range of alternative scenarios for our probabilistic sensitivity analyses (eAppendix). One scenario (assuming nonuniform distributions, using a cost-to-charge ratio for moderate to severe AE costs, and inversely correlating sensitivity and specificity) lowered the mean ICER for adding MRI to $22 868 per QALY gained, but 63.3% of runs still produced ICERs greater than $100 000 per QALY gained. For the “treat all” strategy, the lifetime probabilistic sensitivity analysis yielded a mean ICER estimate (compared with standard risk stratification only) of $268 263 (95% interpercentile range, $97 448-$563 513) per QALY gained, and 94.6% of runs yielded ICERs greater than $100 000 per QALY gained.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Acceptability curve of the cost-effectiveness of adding magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to standard risk stratification according to willingness to pay. The vertical axis represents the probability of cost-effectiveness, defined as producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the willingness-to-pay threshold (in dollars per quality-adjusted life-years gained) listed on the horizontal axis for the MRI (solid line) and “treat all” (dotted line) strategies, respectively. For example, at an ICER threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, less than 10.0% of simulations yielded ICERs below $100 000 for the “treat all” strategy and less than 20.0% for the MRI strategy compared with standard risk stratification only.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 5.

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) scatterplot of adding magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to standard risk stratification. Incremental effectiveness (in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) and lifetime rheumatoid arthritis–related costs are plotted on the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively. Each dot represents the ICER for 1 simulation. The ellipse represents a 95% confidence ellipse around the ICERs (dots) for the MRI strategy compared with standard risk stratification only. The dashed line represents the commonly cited cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, and every dot above this line exceeds this threshold. Therefore, only the dots located on the lower right of this diagonal dashed line represent cost-effective simulations for MRI compared with standard risk stratification at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. These dots correlate with the less than 20.0% of simulations producing cost-effective ICERs for the MRI strategy in Figure 4. Data presented are for the lifetime analysis.

Graphic Jump Location

Using a decision analytic model of early-RA risk assessment, we found that the lifetime ICER for adding MRI to standard prognostic assessments was generally unfavorable, at $167 783 per QALY gained, and offered an incremental gain of fewer than 2 quality-adjusted days. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that this result was robust. Most simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analyses yielded ICERs for MRI above the commonly cited ICER threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. Although decision analytic models are not designed to estimate the number needed to treat or harm as primary outcome measures, we can estimate that 37 patients would need to undergo MRI to identify 1 additional poor-prognosis RA patient. However, in performing these 37 MRIs, 5 additional good-prognosis RA patients would be inappropriately treated with baseline combination therapy and 4 additional patients would experience moderate to severe AEs from combination therapy during a 5-year period.

Although thresholds for acceptable health care value are controversial, most contemporary estimates of willingness to pay for health benefits in the United States range from $50 00082 to 3 times the per-person US gross domestic product (approximately $144 000) per QALY gained.83 Our data suggest MRI is unlikely to be a cost-effective addition to standard prognostic assessments in early RA, despite using highly conservative assumptions (that is, those biased in favor of MRI), including assumptions regarding the quality-of-life effect of RA or complications of its treatments. Although the cost-effectiveness of MRI was sensitive to the performance characteristics of MRI and standard risk stratification, our findings suggest that MRI must provide significantly greater sensitivity, and at least equal specificity, as standard testing only to deliver acceptable value in a population of early-RA patients. Although MRI provides greater sensitivity than standard testing, it is unclear how large an incremental increase in specificity it offers, if any. The specificity of MRI and standard risk stratification are reduced in very early RA84 and are likely to be further reduced with office-based extremity MRIs or in the hands of less-experienced readers.

It is noteworthy that our model included the option of not performing risk stratification (ie, the “treat all” strategy). The “treat all” strategy was preferred in comparison with adding MRI to standard risk stratification in the 12-month analysis. In the lifetime analysis, the “treat all” strategy was preferred when MRI sensitivity approached 100% and when the underlying prevalence of poor-prognosis RA in the population was sufficiently high (>77.0%) that most patients would benefit from aggressive treatment. Although such a high prevalence of poor-prognosis RA is unlikely, the incremental risk of serious AEs is small with combination or biologic treatment compared with methotrexate monotherapy, suggesting that overtreatment confers little additional health risk, particularly in the short term. Our finding that the “treat all” strategy was cost-effective in the first year of treatment supports alternative approaches to early-RA treatment, including induction and withdrawal or induction and maintenance strategies, which may offer economic in addition to clinical85 value and deserve further evaluation. In this setting, our work suggests it may be appropriate to shift focus away from risk stratification per se toward optimizing early diagnosis and early-RA treatment.

This analysis has several limitations. Because published data for our input variables were limited, we used some assumptions that relied on expert opinion. However, we chose estimates with strong clinical face validity, and we tested wide ranges of possible values for each input variable. We used data from patients with later-stage disease than our target population; as many as 62.0% of participants in studies included in the model had baseline plain radiographic erosions, likely representing populations with greater disease severity. However, this likely overestimated the favorability of MRI, because using MRI increases the proportion of the population receiving aggressive treatment at baseline due to the high sensitivity of MRI in identifying individuals at risk for progression. We did not consider the consequences of AEs after the first year of treatment and we did not include spontaneous remission in our model because data suggest it occurs in less than 8% of early-RA patients,7 both of which are reasons for possibly overestimating the favorability of MRI. Removing these biases would make the cost-effectiveness of MRI even less favorable. We did not use a cost-to-charge ratio in the calculation of costs related to moderate to severe AEs but found that adjusting for this resulting bias in sensitivity analyses did not qualitatively alter our results except in combination with other modifications. We used clinical rather than radiographic outcomes because we believe these correlate with quality-of-life measures and are in accordance with recommendations for RA clinical trials.8688

To our knowledge, ours is the first study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MRI for early-RA risk stratification. Other data examining the cost-effectiveness of MRI as a risk-stratification tool have found inconsistent results. A randomized clinical trial89 in early breast cancer demonstrated no reduction in subsequent operation rates in the MRI vs the no-MRI group, but a study90 of knee MRI after acute injury in patients with normal plain radiographs found reduced costs and improved clinical outcomes in the MRI group compared with the no-MRI group. Although the use of MRI in RA in the United States is unknown, an unpublished national survey of rheumatologists demonstrated that more than a third of respondents had used MRI in the treatment of their RA patients within the last year (Marissa Blum, MD, written communication, June 2010).

Our data suggest that adding MRI to standard risk stratification is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard testing only under commonly found clinical conditions and accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Given our findings in combination with the fact that nonradiologist MRI facility ownership is increasing,91 our data support a prudent approach to technology adoption in RA risk stratification. Data clearly defining the clinical benefit of MRI in early-RA treatment are urgently needed.

Correspondence: Lisa G. Suter, MD, Section of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, 300 Cedar St, Room TAC S541, PO Box 208031, New Haven, CT 06520-8031 (lisa.suter@yale.edu).

Accepted for Publication: October 11, 2010.

Author Contributions: Drs Suter and Braithwaite had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Suter, Fraenkel, and Braithwaite. Acquisition of data: Suter. Analysis and interpretation of data: Suter and Braithwaite. Drafting of the manuscript: Suter and Fraenkel. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Suter, Fraenkel, and Braithwaite. Statistical analysis: Suter and Braithwaite. Obtained funding: Suter. Administrative, technical, and material support: Suter. Study supervision: Fraenkel and Braithwaite.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: Dr Suter is funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) K23 AR054095-01 Mentored Career Development and Arthritis Foundation Arthritis Investigator Awards and receives consultancy fees from the Yale–New Haven Health Services Corporation/Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation. Dr Fraenkel receives support from the NIH, the Arthritis Foundation, the American College of Rheumatology Research and Education Foundation, the Donaghue Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr Braithwaite receives support from the NIH, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Role of the Sponsors: The funding sources had no role in study design or data interpretation.

Online-OnlyMaterial: The eAppendix is available at http://www.archinternmed.com.

Helmick  CGFelson  DTLawrence  RC  et al. National Arthritis Data Workgroup, Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States: part I. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58 (1) 15- 25
PubMed
Birnbaum  HPike  CKaufman  RMaynchenko  MKidolezi  YCifaldi  M Societal cost of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the US. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26 (1) 77- 90
PubMed
Benucci  MCammelli  EManfredi  MSaviola  GBaiardi  PMannoni  AAssociazione Medici-Scandicci, Early rheumatoid arthritis in Italy: study of incidence based on a two-level strategy in a sub-area of Florence (Scandicci-Le Signe). Rheumatol Int 2008;28 (8) 777- 781
PubMed
Myasoedova  ECrowson  CSKremers  HMTherneau  TMGabriel  SE Is the incidence of rheumatoid arthritis rising?: results from Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1955-2007. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62 (6) 1576- 1582
PubMed
Ramos-Remus  CSierra-Jimenez  GSkeith  K  et al.  Latitude gradient influences the age of onset in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Clin Rheumatol 2007;26 (10) 1725- 1728
PubMed
Möttönen  THannonen  PLeirisalo-Repo  M  et al. FIN-RACo Trial Group, Comparison of combination therapy with single-drug therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999;353 (9164) 1568- 1573
PubMed
Wolfe  FRoss  KHawley  DJRoberts  FKCathey  MA The prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis and undifferentiated polyarthritis syndrome in the clinic: a study of 1141 patients. J Rheumatol 1993;20 (12) 2005- 2009
PubMed
Michaud  KMesser  JChoi  HKWolfe  F Direct medical costs and their predictors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a three-year study of 7,527 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48 (10) 2750- 2762
PubMed
Ostendorf  BScherer  AMödder  USchneider  M Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging of the forefeet in early rheumatoid arthritis when findings on imaging of the metacarpophalangeal joints of the hands remain normal. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50 (7) 2094- 2102
PubMed
Brown  AKQuinn  MAKarim  Z  et al.  Presence of significant synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis patients with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug–induced clinical remission: evidence from an imaging study may explain structural progression. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54 (12) 3761- 3773
PubMed
McQueen  FMBenton  NPerry  D  et al.  Bone edema scored on magnetic resonance imaging scans of the dominant carpus at presentation predicts radiographic joint damage of the hands and feet six years later in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48 (7) 1814- 1827
PubMed
Bøyesen  PHaavardsholm  EAOstergaard  Mvan der Heijde  DSesseng  SKvien  TK MRI in early rheumatoid arthritis: synovitis and bone marrow oedema are independent predictors of subsequent radiographic progression. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70 (3) 428- 433
PubMed
Boesen  MØstergaard  MCimmino  MAKubassova  OJensen  KEBliddal  H MRI quantification of rheumatoid arthritis: current knowledge and future perspectives. Eur J Radiol 2009;71 (2) 189- 196
PubMed
Saag  KGTeng  GGPatkar  NM  et al. American College of Rheumatology, American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59 (6) 762- 784
PubMed
Landewé  RBBoers  MVerhoeven  AC  et al.  COBRA combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: long-term structural benefits of a brief intervention. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46 (2) 347- 356
PubMed
van der Heijde  DMvan Leeuwen  MAvan Riel  PL  et al.  Biannual radiographic assessments of hands and feet in a three-year prospective followup of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35 (1) 26- 34
PubMed
Fransen  JStucki  Gvan Riel  PLCM Rheumatoid arthritis measures: Disease Activity Score (DAS), Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28), Rapid Assessment of Disease Activity in Rheumatology (RADAR), and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI). Arthritis Rheum 2003;49 (5S) S214- S224
Mäkinen  HHannonen  PSokka  T Definitions of remission for rheumatoid arthritis and review of selected clinical cohorts and randomised clinical trials for the rate of remission. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006;24 (6) ((suppl 43)) S-22- S-28
PubMed
McQueen  FMStewart  NCrabbe  J  et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis reveals progression of erosions despite clinical improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58 (3) 156- 163
PubMed
Hoving  JLBuchbinder  RHall  S  et al.  A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, sonography, and radiography of the hand in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2004;31 (4) 663- 675
PubMed
de Vries-Bouwstra  JLe Cessie  SAllaart  CBreedveld  FHuizinga  T Using predicted disease outcome to provide differentiated treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2006;33 (9) 1747- 1753
PubMed
Conaghan  PGO’Connor  PMcGonagle  D  et al.  Elucidation of the relationship between synovitis and bone damage: a randomized magnetic resonance imaging study of individual joints in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48 (1) 64- 71
PubMed
Lindegaard  HMVallø  JHørslev-Petersen  KJunker  PØstergaard  M Low-cost, low-field dedicated extremity magnetic resonance imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65 (9) 1208- 1212
PubMed
Hetland  MLEjbjerg  BHørslev-Petersen  K  et al. CIMESTRA Study Group, MRI bone oedema is the strongest predictor of subsequent radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from a 2-year randomised controlled trial (CIMESTRA). Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68 (3) 384- 390
PubMed
Hammer  HBHaavardsholm  EABøyesen  PKvien  TK Bone erosions at the distal ulna detected by ultrasonography are associated with structural damage assessed by conventional radiography and MRI: a study of patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009;48 (12) 1530- 1532
PubMed
Syversen  SWGaarder  PIGoll  GL  et al.  High anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide levels and an algorithm of four variables predict radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67 (2) 212- 217
PubMed
Jansen  LMAvan der Horst-Bruinsma  IEvan Schaardenburg  DBezemer  PDDijkmans  BAC Predictors of radiographic joint damage in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60 (10) 924- 927
PubMed
Jansen  LMAvan Schaardenburg  Dvan der Horst-Bruinsma  Ivan der Stadt  RJde Koning  MHMTDijkmans  BAC The predictive value of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies in early arthritis. J Rheumatol 2003;30 (8) 1691- 1695
PubMed
McQueen  FMBenton  NCrabbe  J  et al.  What is the fate of erosions in early rheumatoid arthritis? tracking individual lesions using x rays and magnetic resonance imaging over the first two years of disease. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60 (9) 859- 868
PubMed
Østergaard  MHansen  MStoltenberg  M  et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging–determined synovial membrane volume as a marker of disease activity and a predictor of progressive joint destruction in the wrists of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42 (5) 918- 929
PubMed
Haavardsholm  EABøyesen  PØstergaard  MSchildvold  AKvien  TK Magnetic resonance imaging findings in 84 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: bone marrow oedema predicts erosive progression. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67 (6) 794- 800
PubMed
Mundwiler  MLMaranian  PBrown  DH  et al.  The utility of MRI in predicting radiographic erosions in the metatarsophalangeal joints of the rheumatoid foot: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther 2009;11 (3) R94
PubMed10.1186/ar2737
Bathon  JMMartin  RWFleischmann  RM  et al.  A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2000;343 (22) 1586- 1593
PubMed
Goekoop-Ruiterman  YPMDe Vries-Bouwstra  JKAllaart  CF  et al.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the BeSt study): a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52 (11) 3381- 3390
PubMed
Taylor  PCSteuer  AGruber  J  et al.  Comparison of ultrasonographic assessment of synovitis and joint vascularity with radiographic evaluation in a randomized, placebo-controlled study of infliximab therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50 (4) 1107- 1116
PubMed
Saunders  SACapell  HAStirling  A  et al.  Triple therapy in early active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial comparing step-up and parallel treatment strategies. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58 (5) 1310- 1317
PubMed
Goekoop-Ruiterman  YPde Vries-Bouwstra  JKAllaart  CF  et al.  Comparison of treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2007;146 (6) 406- 415
PubMed
van der Heijde  DKlareskog  LLandewé  R  et al.  Disease remission and sustained halting of radiographic progression with combination etanercept and methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56 (12) 3928- 3939
PubMed
Korpela  MLaasonen  LHannonen  P  et al. FIN-RACo Trial Group, Retardation of joint damage in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis by initial aggressive treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: five-year experience from the FIN-RACo study. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50 (7) 2072- 2081
PubMed
Du Pan  SMDehler  SCiurea  AZiswiler  H-RGabay  CFinckh  ASwiss Clinical Quality Management Physicians, Comparison of drug retention rates and causes of drug discontinuation between anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61 (5) 560- 568
PubMed
Ferraccioli  GFGremese  ETomietto  PFavret  GDamato  RDi Poi  E Analysis of improvements, full responses, remission and toxicity in rheumatoid patients treated with step-up combination therapy (methotrexate, cyclosporin A, sulphasalazine) or monotherapy for three years. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41 (8) 892- 898
PubMed
Lerndal  TSvensson  B A clinical study of CPH 82 vs methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000;39 (3) 316- 320
PubMed
Sarzi-Puttini  PD’Ingianna  EFumagalli  M  et al.  An open, randomized comparison study of cyclosporine A, cyclosporine A + methotrexate and cyclosporine A + hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of early severe rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int 2005;25 (1) 15- 22
PubMed
Lehman  AJEsdaile  JMKlinkhoff  AV  et al. METGO Study Group, A 48-week, randomized, double-blind, double-observer, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of combination methotrexate and intramuscular gold therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: results of the METGO study. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52 (5) 1360- 1370
PubMed
van Dongen  Hvan Aken  JLard  LR  et al.  Efficacy of methotrexate treatment in patients with probable rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56 (5) 1424- 1432
PubMed
Dougados  MCombe  BCantagrel  A  et al.  Combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, controlled, double blind 52 week clinical trial of sulphasalazine and methotrexate compared with the single components. Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58 (4) 220- 225
PubMed
Marchesoni  ABattafarano  NArreghini  M  et al.  Step-down approach using either cyclosporin A or methotrexate as maintenance therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002;47 (1) 59- 66
PubMed
Lee  S-SPark  Y-WPark  JJ  et al.  Combination treatment with leflunomide and methotrexate for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 2009;38 (1) 11- 14
PubMed
Lipsky  PEvan der Heijde  DMFMSt Clair  EW  et al. Anti–Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group, Infliximab and methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2000;343 (22) 1594- 1602
PubMed
Moreland  LWSchiff  MHBaumgartner  SW  et al.  Etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1999;130 (6) 478- 486
PubMed
Smolen  JSHan  CBala  M  et al. ATTRACT Study Group, Evidence of radiographic benefit of treatment with infliximab plus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients who had no clinical improvement: a detailed subanalysis of data from the Anti–tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis With Concomitant Therapy Study. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52 (4) 1020- 1030
PubMed
Barrera  Pvan der Maas  Avan Ede  AE  et al.  Drug survival, efficacy and toxicity of monotherapy with a fully human anti–tumour necrosis factor- α antibody compared with methotrexate in long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41 (4) 430- 439
PubMed
Klareskog  Lvan der Heijde  Dde Jager  JP  et al. TEMPO (Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes) Study Investigators, Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;363 (9410) 675- 681
PubMed
Khanna  DPark  GSPaulus  HE  et al.  Reduction of the efficacy of methotrexate by the use of folic acid: post hoc analysis from two randomized controlled studies. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52 (10) 3030- 3038
PubMed
Gerards  AHLandewé  RBMPrins  APA  et al.  Cyclosporin A monotherapy versus cyclosporin A and methotrexate combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: a double blind randomised placebo controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62 (4) 291- 296
PubMed
St Clair  EWvan der Heijde  DMFMSmolen  JS  et al. Active-Controlled Study of Patients Receiving Infliximab for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis of Early Onset Study Group, Combination of infliximab and methotrexate therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50 (11) 3432- 3443
PubMed
Quinn  MAConaghan  PGO’Connor  PJ  et al.  Very early treatment with infliximab in addition to methotrexate in early, poor-prognosis rheumatoid arthritis reduces magnetic resonance imaging evidence of synovitis and damage, with sustained benefit after infliximab withdrawal: results from a twelve-month randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52 (1) 27- 35
PubMed
 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Nationwide inpatient sample. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Web site. http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/. Accessed September 30, 2009 
Marra  CAWoolcott  JCKopec  JA  et al.  A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005;60 (7) 1571- 1582
PubMed
Brown  JSNeumann  PJPapadopoulos  GRuoff  GDiamond  MMenzin  J Migraine frequency and health utilities: findings from a multisite survey. Value Health 2008;11 (2) 315- 321
PubMed
Sackett  DLTorrance  GW The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978;31 (11) 697- 704
PubMed
Blumenschein  KJohannesson  M Relationship between quality of life instruments, health state utilities, and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1998;80 (2) 189- 194
PubMed
Verhoeven  ACBoers  Mvan der Linden  S Responsiveness of the core set, response criteria, and utilities in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2000;59 (12) 966- 974
PubMed
Söderlin  MKKautiainen  HSkogh  TLeirisalo-Repo  M Quality of life and economic burden of illness in very early arthritis: a population based study in southern Sweden. J Rheumatol 2004;31 (9) 1717- 1722
PubMed
Kobelt  GJönsson  LLindgren  PYoung  AEberhardt  K Modeling the progression of rheumatoid arthritis: a two-country model to estimate costs and consequences of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46 (9) 2310- 2319
PubMed
Wells  GBoers  MShea  B  et al. International League of Associations for Rheumatology; OMERACT/ILAR Task Force on Generic Quality of Life; Life Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Sensitivity to change of generic quality of life instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary findings in the generic health OMERACT study. J Rheumatol 1999;26 (1) 217- 221
PubMed
 CPT Code/Relative Value Search (based on 2009 CPT codes and Medicare payment information) for CPT codes 73218-73223, 73100, 73120, 73620, 85651, 85652, 86200, and 86431. https://catalog.ama-assn.org/Catalog/cpt/cpt_search.jsp?locality=_n. Accessed August 5, 2009
Birnbaum  HGBarton  MGreenberg  PE  et al.  Direct and indirect costs of rheumatoid arthritis to an employer. J Occup Environ Med 2000;42 (6) 588- 596
PubMed
Wolfe  FMichaud  KChoi  HKWilliams  R Household income and earnings losses among 6,396 persons with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2005;32 (10) 1875- 1883
PubMed
Puolakka  KKautiainen  HPekurinen  M  et al. FIN-RACo Trial Group, Monetary value of lost productivity over a five year follow up in early rheumatoid arthritis estimated on the basis of official register data on patients' sickness absence and gross income: experience from the FIN-RACo trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65 (7) 899- 904
PubMed
Li  XGignac  MAAnis  AH The indirect costs of arthritis resulting from unemployment, reduced performance, and occupational changes while at work. Med Care 2006;44 (4) 304- 310
PubMed
Merkesdal  SRuof  JHuelsemann  JL  et al.  Indirect cost assessment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA): comparison of data from the Health Economic Patient Questionnaire HEQ-RA and insurance claims data. Arthritis Rheum 2005;53 (2) 234- 240
PubMed
Newhall-Perry  KLaw  NJRamos  B  et al. Western Consortium of Practicing Rheumatologists, Direct and indirect costs associated with the onset of seropositive rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2000;27 (5) 1156- 1163
PubMed
Griffiths  RIBar-Din  MMacLean  CHSullivan  EMHerbert  RJYelin  EH Medical resource use and costs among rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. Arthritis Care Res 2000;13 (4) 213- 226
PubMed
 2001 Drug Topics Red Book.  Montvale, NJ Medical Economics2001;
Choi  HKSeeger  JDKuntz  KM A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options for patients with methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43 (10) 2316- 2327
PubMed
 Real earnings in February 2008 [press release]. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Dept of Labor; March 14, 2008. USDL 08-0335 
 National Vital Statistics System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. 2004. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm. Accessed July 7, 2009 
Gabriel  SECrowson  CSKremers  HM  et al.  Survival in rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based analysis of trends over 40 years. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48 (1) 54- 58
PubMed
Wolfe  FMitchell  DMSibley  JT  et al.  The mortality of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1994;37 (4) 481- 494
PubMed
Bureau of Labor Statistics,Consumer Price Index inflation calculator. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. Accessed March 2, 2010
Braithwaite  RSMeltzer  DOKing  JT  JrLeslie  DRoberts  MS What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care 2008;46 (4) 349- 356
PubMed
Murray  CJLEvans  DBAcharya  ABaltussen  RMPM Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000;9 (3) 235- 251
PubMed
Matsui  TShimada  KOzawa  N  et al.  Diagnostic utility of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies for very early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2006;33 (12) 2390- 2397
PubMed
Tanaka  YTakeuchi  TMimori  T  et al. RRR Study Investigators, Extended report: discontinuation of infliximab after attaining low disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: RRR (remission induction by Remicade in RA) study. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69 (7) 1286- 1291
Felson  DTAnderson  JJBoers  M  et al. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials, The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 1993;36 (6) 729- 740
PubMed
Felson  DTAnderson  JJBoers  M  et al.  American College of Rheumatology: preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38 (6) 727- 735
PubMed
Gülfe  AGeborek  PSaxne  T Response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: how useful are they? Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64 (8) 1186- 1189
PubMed
Turnbull  LBrown  SHarvey  I  et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of MRI in Breast Cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;375 (9714) 563- 571
PubMed
Oei  EHGNikken  JJGinai  AZ  et al.  Costs and effectiveness of a brief MRI examination of patients with acute knee injury. Eur Radiol 2009;19 (2) 409- 418
PubMed
Levin  DCRao  VMParker  LFrangos  AJSunshine  JH Ownership or leasing of MRI facilities by nonradiologist physicians is a rapidly growing trend. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5 (2) 105- 109
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Model decision trees. Risk-stratification tree represents risk stratification (standard testing with and without magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and “treat all” arms. Positive test result leads to baseline combination therapy. Treatment tree represents treatment regimens including optimized methotrexate monotherapy, escalated as needed; combination therapy of 2 or more traditional disease-modifying drugs (eg, triple therapy with hydroxychloroquine sulfate, sulfasalazine, and methotrexate); and biologic therapy (with methotrexate). Lack of treatment response (see text) leads to treatment escalation (from tier 1 to 2 and tier 2 to 3). ACR50 indicates American College of Rheumatology criteria for a 50% improvement in disease activity; RA, rheumatoid arthritis.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Threshold analysis for variables to which model output was sensitive in 1-way sensitivity analysis. Each horizontal bar represents the complete range of values for the variables listed on the vertical axis. Shaded areas represent those values that produced favorable (ie, <$100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained) for a given strategy. For example, when the probability of remission after 6 months of methotrexate therapy is greater than 23.0%, standard risk stratification only is favored over the other strategies. Arrows indicate base case assumptions. MRI indicates magnetic resonance imaging; RA, rheumatoid arthritis.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Graphic depiction of test performance assumptions under which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus standard risk stratification is the favored strategy (gray volume). Axes display plausible ranges for MRI sensitivity (horizontal) and specificity (depth) and standard risk stratification sensitivity (vertical, top) and specificity (vertical, bottom). Gray volume represents assumptions under which MRI is favored (ie, yields incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$100 000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained [in dollars per quality-adjusted life-years gained]); the remaining space reflects assumptions under which standard risk stratification only is preferred.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Acceptability curve of the cost-effectiveness of adding magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to standard risk stratification according to willingness to pay. The vertical axis represents the probability of cost-effectiveness, defined as producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the willingness-to-pay threshold (in dollars per quality-adjusted life-years gained) listed on the horizontal axis for the MRI (solid line) and “treat all” (dotted line) strategies, respectively. For example, at an ICER threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, less than 10.0% of simulations yielded ICERs below $100 000 for the “treat all” strategy and less than 20.0% for the MRI strategy compared with standard risk stratification only.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 5.

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) scatterplot of adding magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to standard risk stratification. Incremental effectiveness (in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) and lifetime rheumatoid arthritis–related costs are plotted on the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively. Each dot represents the ICER for 1 simulation. The ellipse represents a 95% confidence ellipse around the ICERs (dots) for the MRI strategy compared with standard risk stratification only. The dashed line represents the commonly cited cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, and every dot above this line exceeds this threshold. Therefore, only the dots located on the lower right of this diagonal dashed line represent cost-effective simulations for MRI compared with standard risk stratification at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. These dots correlate with the less than 20.0% of simulations producing cost-effective ICERs for the MRI strategy in Figure 4. Data presented are for the lifetime analysis.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. One-Year and Lifetime RA-Related Costs, QALYs, and ICERs for All Risk-Assessment Armsa

References

Helmick  CGFelson  DTLawrence  RC  et al. National Arthritis Data Workgroup, Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States: part I. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58 (1) 15- 25
PubMed
Birnbaum  HPike  CKaufman  RMaynchenko  MKidolezi  YCifaldi  M Societal cost of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the US. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26 (1) 77- 90
PubMed
Benucci  MCammelli  EManfredi  MSaviola  GBaiardi  PMannoni  AAssociazione Medici-Scandicci, Early rheumatoid arthritis in Italy: study of incidence based on a two-level strategy in a sub-area of Florence (Scandicci-Le Signe). Rheumatol Int 2008;28 (8) 777- 781
PubMed
Myasoedova  ECrowson  CSKremers  HMTherneau  TMGabriel  SE Is the incidence of rheumatoid arthritis rising?: results from Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1955-2007. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62 (6) 1576- 1582
PubMed
Ramos-Remus  CSierra-Jimenez  GSkeith  K  et al.  Latitude gradient influences the age of onset in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Clin Rheumatol 2007;26 (10) 1725- 1728
PubMed
Möttönen  THannonen  PLeirisalo-Repo  M  et al. FIN-RACo Trial Group, Comparison of combination therapy with single-drug therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999;353 (9164) 1568- 1573
PubMed
Wolfe  FRoss  KHawley  DJRoberts  FKCathey  MA The prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis and undifferentiated polyarthritis syndrome in the clinic: a study of 1141 patients. J Rheumatol 1993;20 (12) 2005- 2009
PubMed
Michaud  KMesser  JChoi  HKWolfe  F Direct medical costs and their predictors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a three-year study of 7,527 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48 (10) 2750- 2762
PubMed
Ostendorf  BScherer  AMödder  USchneider  M Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging of the forefeet in early rheumatoid arthritis when findings on imaging of the metacarpophalangeal joints of the hands remain normal. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50 (7) 2094- 2102
PubMed
Brown  AKQuinn  MAKarim  Z  et al.  Presence of significant synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis patients with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug–induced clinical remission: evidence from an imaging study may explain structural progression. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54 (12) 3761- 3773
PubMed
McQueen  FMBenton  NPerry  D  et al.  Bone edema scored on magnetic resonance imaging scans of the dominant carpus at presentation predicts radiographic joint damage of the hands and feet six years later in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48 (7) 1814- 1827
PubMed
Bøyesen  PHaavardsholm  EAOstergaard  Mvan der Heijde  DSesseng  SKvien  TK MRI in early rheumatoid arthritis: synovitis and bone marrow oedema are independent predictors of subsequent radiographic progression. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70 (3) 428- 433
PubMed
Boesen  MØstergaard  MCimmino  MAKubassova  OJensen  KEBliddal  H MRI quantification of rheumatoid arthritis: current knowledge and future perspectives. Eur J Radiol 2009;71 (2) 189- 196
PubMed
Saag  KGTeng  GGPatkar  NM  et al. American College of Rheumatology, American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59 (6) 762- 784
PubMed
Landewé  RBBoers  MVerhoeven  AC  et al.  COBRA combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: long-term structural benefits of a brief intervention. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46 (2) 347- 356
PubMed
van der Heijde  DMvan Leeuwen  MAvan Riel  PL  et al.  Biannual radiographic assessments of hands and feet in a three-year prospective followup of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35 (1) 26- 34
PubMed
Fransen  JStucki  Gvan Riel  PLCM Rheumatoid arthritis measures: Disease Activity Score (DAS), Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28), Rapid Assessment of Disease Activity in Rheumatology (RADAR), and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI). Arthritis Rheum 2003;49 (5S) S214- S224
Mäkinen  HHannonen  PSokka  T Definitions of remission for rheumatoid arthritis and review of selected clinical cohorts and randomised clinical trials for the rate of remission. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006;24 (6) ((suppl 43)) S-22- S-28
PubMed
McQueen  FMStewart  NCrabbe  J  et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis reveals progression of erosions despite clinical improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58 (3) 156- 163
PubMed
Hoving  JLBuchbinder  RHall  S  et al.  A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, sonography, and radiography of the hand in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2004;31 (4) 663- 675
PubMed
de Vries-Bouwstra  JLe Cessie  SAllaart  CBreedveld  FHuizinga  T Using predicted disease outcome to provide differentiated treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2006;33 (9) 1747- 1753
PubMed
Conaghan  PGO’Connor  PMcGonagle  D  et al.  Elucidation of the relationship between synovitis and bone damage: a randomized magnetic resonance imaging study of individual joints in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48 (1) 64- 71
PubMed
Lindegaard  HMVallø  JHørslev-Petersen  KJunker  PØstergaard  M Low-cost, low-field dedicated extremity magnetic resonance imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65 (9) 1208- 1212
PubMed
Hetland  MLEjbjerg  BHørslev-Petersen  K  et al. CIMESTRA Study Group, MRI bone oedema is the strongest predictor of subsequent radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from a 2-year randomised controlled trial (CIMESTRA). Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68 (3) 384- 390
PubMed
Hammer  HBHaavardsholm  EABøyesen  PKvien  TK Bone erosions at the distal ulna detected by ultrasonography are associated with structural damage assessed by conventional radiography and MRI: a study of patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009;48 (12) 1530- 1532
PubMed
Syversen  SWGaarder  PIGoll  GL  et al.  High anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide levels and an algorithm of four variables predict radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67 (2) 212- 217
PubMed
Jansen  LMAvan der Horst-Bruinsma  IEvan Schaardenburg  DBezemer  PDDijkmans  BAC Predictors of radiographic joint damage in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60 (10) 924- 927
PubMed
Jansen  LMAvan Schaardenburg  Dvan der Horst-Bruinsma  Ivan der Stadt  RJde Koning  MHMTDijkmans  BAC The predictive value of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies in early arthritis. J Rheumatol 2003;30 (8) 1691- 1695
PubMed
McQueen  FMBenton  NCrabbe  J  et al.  What is the fate of erosions in early rheumatoid arthritis? tracking individual lesions using x rays and magnetic resonance imaging over the first two years of disease. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60 (9) 859- 868
PubMed
Østergaard  MHansen  MStoltenberg  M  et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging–determined synovial membrane volume as a marker of disease activity and a predictor of progressive joint destruction in the wrists of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42 (5) 918- 929
PubMed
Haavardsholm  EABøyesen  PØstergaard  MSchildvold  AKvien  TK Magnetic resonance imaging findings in 84 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: bone marrow oedema predicts erosive progression. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67 (6) 794- 800
PubMed
Mundwiler  MLMaranian  PBrown  DH  et al.  The utility of MRI in predicting radiographic erosions in the metatarsophalangeal joints of the rheumatoid foot: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther 2009;11 (3) R94
PubMed10.1186/ar2737
Bathon  JMMartin  RWFleischmann  RM  et al.  A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2000;343 (22) 1586- 1593
PubMed
Goekoop-Ruiterman  YPMDe Vries-Bouwstra  JKAllaart  CF  et al.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the BeSt study): a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52 (11) 3381- 3390
PubMed
Taylor  PCSteuer  AGruber  J  et al.  Comparison of ultrasonographic assessment of synovitis and joint vascularity with radiographic evaluation in a randomized, placebo-controlled study of infliximab therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50 (4) 1107- 1116
PubMed
Saunders  SACapell  HAStirling  A  et al.  Triple therapy in early active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial comparing step-up and parallel treatment strategies. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58 (5) 1310- 1317
PubMed
Goekoop-Ruiterman  YPde Vries-Bouwstra  JKAllaart  CF  et al.  Comparison of treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2007;146 (6) 406- 415
PubMed
van der Heijde  DKlareskog  LLandewé  R  et al.  Disease remission and sustained halting of radiographic progression with combination etanercept and methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56 (12) 3928- 3939
PubMed
Korpela  MLaasonen  LHannonen  P  et al. FIN-RACo Trial Group, Retardation of joint damage in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis by initial aggressive treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: five-year experience from the FIN-RACo study. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50 (7) 2072- 2081
PubMed
Du Pan  SMDehler  SCiurea  AZiswiler  H-RGabay  CFinckh  ASwiss Clinical Quality Management Physicians, Comparison of drug retention rates and causes of drug discontinuation between anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61 (5) 560- 568
PubMed
Ferraccioli  GFGremese  ETomietto  PFavret  GDamato  RDi Poi  E Analysis of improvements, full responses, remission and toxicity in rheumatoid patients treated with step-up combination therapy (methotrexate, cyclosporin A, sulphasalazine) or monotherapy for three years. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41 (8) 892- 898
PubMed
Lerndal  TSvensson  B A clinical study of CPH 82 vs methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000;39 (3) 316- 320
PubMed
Sarzi-Puttini  PD’Ingianna  EFumagalli  M  et al.  An open, randomized comparison study of cyclosporine A, cyclosporine A + methotrexate and cyclosporine A + hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of early severe rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int 2005;25 (1) 15- 22
PubMed
Lehman  AJEsdaile  JMKlinkhoff  AV  et al. METGO Study Group, A 48-week, randomized, double-blind, double-observer, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of combination methotrexate and intramuscular gold therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: results of the METGO study. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52 (5) 1360- 1370
PubMed
van Dongen  Hvan Aken  JLard  LR  et al.  Efficacy of methotrexate treatment in patients with probable rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56 (5) 1424- 1432
PubMed
Dougados  MCombe  BCantagrel  A  et al.  Combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, controlled, double blind 52 week clinical trial of sulphasalazine and methotrexate compared with the single components. Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58 (4) 220- 225
PubMed
Marchesoni  ABattafarano  NArreghini  M  et al.  Step-down approach using either cyclosporin A or methotrexate as maintenance therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002;47 (1) 59- 66
PubMed
Lee  S-SPark  Y-WPark  JJ  et al.  Combination treatment with leflunomide and methotrexate for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 2009;38 (1) 11- 14
PubMed
Lipsky  PEvan der Heijde  DMFMSt Clair  EW  et al. Anti–Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group, Infliximab and methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2000;343 (22) 1594- 1602
PubMed
Moreland  LWSchiff  MHBaumgartner  SW  et al.  Etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1999;130 (6) 478- 486
PubMed
Smolen  JSHan  CBala  M  et al. ATTRACT Study Group, Evidence of radiographic benefit of treatment with infliximab plus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients who had no clinical improvement: a detailed subanalysis of data from the Anti–tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis With Concomitant Therapy Study. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52 (4) 1020- 1030
PubMed
Barrera  Pvan der Maas  Avan Ede  AE  et al.  Drug survival, efficacy and toxicity of monotherapy with a fully human anti–tumour necrosis factor- α antibody compared with methotrexate in long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41 (4) 430- 439
PubMed
Klareskog  Lvan der Heijde  Dde Jager  JP  et al. TEMPO (Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes) Study Investigators, Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;363 (9410) 675- 681
PubMed
Khanna  DPark  GSPaulus  HE  et al.  Reduction of the efficacy of methotrexate by the use of folic acid: post hoc analysis from two randomized controlled studies. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52 (10) 3030- 3038
PubMed
Gerards  AHLandewé  RBMPrins  APA  et al.  Cyclosporin A monotherapy versus cyclosporin A and methotrexate combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: a double blind randomised placebo controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62 (4) 291- 296
PubMed
St Clair  EWvan der Heijde  DMFMSmolen  JS  et al. Active-Controlled Study of Patients Receiving Infliximab for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis of Early Onset Study Group, Combination of infliximab and methotrexate therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50 (11) 3432- 3443
PubMed
Quinn  MAConaghan  PGO’Connor  PJ  et al.  Very early treatment with infliximab in addition to methotrexate in early, poor-prognosis rheumatoid arthritis reduces magnetic resonance imaging evidence of synovitis and damage, with sustained benefit after infliximab withdrawal: results from a twelve-month randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52 (1) 27- 35
PubMed
 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Nationwide inpatient sample. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Web site. http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/. Accessed September 30, 2009 
Marra  CAWoolcott  JCKopec  JA  et al.  A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005;60 (7) 1571- 1582
PubMed
Brown  JSNeumann  PJPapadopoulos  GRuoff  GDiamond  MMenzin  J Migraine frequency and health utilities: findings from a multisite survey. Value Health 2008;11 (2) 315- 321
PubMed
Sackett  DLTorrance  GW The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978;31 (11) 697- 704
PubMed
Blumenschein  KJohannesson  M Relationship between quality of life instruments, health state utilities, and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1998;80 (2) 189- 194
PubMed
Verhoeven  ACBoers  Mvan der Linden  S Responsiveness of the core set, response criteria, and utilities in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2000;59 (12) 966- 974
PubMed
Söderlin  MKKautiainen  HSkogh  TLeirisalo-Repo  M Quality of life and economic burden of illness in very early arthritis: a population based study in southern Sweden. J Rheumatol 2004;31 (9) 1717- 1722
PubMed
Kobelt  GJönsson  LLindgren  PYoung  AEberhardt  K Modeling the progression of rheumatoid arthritis: a two-country model to estimate costs and consequences of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46 (9) 2310- 2319
PubMed
Wells  GBoers  MShea  B  et al. International League of Associations for Rheumatology; OMERACT/ILAR Task Force on Generic Quality of Life; Life Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Sensitivity to change of generic quality of life instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary findings in the generic health OMERACT study. J Rheumatol 1999;26 (1) 217- 221
PubMed
 CPT Code/Relative Value Search (based on 2009 CPT codes and Medicare payment information) for CPT codes 73218-73223, 73100, 73120, 73620, 85651, 85652, 86200, and 86431. https://catalog.ama-assn.org/Catalog/cpt/cpt_search.jsp?locality=_n. Accessed August 5, 2009
Birnbaum  HGBarton  MGreenberg  PE  et al.  Direct and indirect costs of rheumatoid arthritis to an employer. J Occup Environ Med 2000;42 (6) 588- 596
PubMed
Wolfe  FMichaud  KChoi  HKWilliams  R Household income and earnings losses among 6,396 persons with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2005;32 (10) 1875- 1883
PubMed
Puolakka  KKautiainen  HPekurinen  M  et al. FIN-RACo Trial Group, Monetary value of lost productivity over a five year follow up in early rheumatoid arthritis estimated on the basis of official register data on patients' sickness absence and gross income: experience from the FIN-RACo trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65 (7) 899- 904
PubMed
Li  XGignac  MAAnis  AH The indirect costs of arthritis resulting from unemployment, reduced performance, and occupational changes while at work. Med Care 2006;44 (4) 304- 310
PubMed
Merkesdal  SRuof  JHuelsemann  JL  et al.  Indirect cost assessment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA): comparison of data from the Health Economic Patient Questionnaire HEQ-RA and insurance claims data. Arthritis Rheum 2005;53 (2) 234- 240
PubMed
Newhall-Perry  KLaw  NJRamos  B  et al. Western Consortium of Practicing Rheumatologists, Direct and indirect costs associated with the onset of seropositive rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2000;27 (5) 1156- 1163
PubMed
Griffiths  RIBar-Din  MMacLean  CHSullivan  EMHerbert  RJYelin  EH Medical resource use and costs among rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. Arthritis Care Res 2000;13 (4) 213- 226
PubMed
 2001 Drug Topics Red Book.  Montvale, NJ Medical Economics2001;
Choi  HKSeeger  JDKuntz  KM A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options for patients with methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43 (10) 2316- 2327
PubMed
 Real earnings in February 2008 [press release]. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Dept of Labor; March 14, 2008. USDL 08-0335 
 National Vital Statistics System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. 2004. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm. Accessed July 7, 2009 
Gabriel  SECrowson  CSKremers  HM  et al.  Survival in rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based analysis of trends over 40 years. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48 (1) 54- 58
PubMed
Wolfe  FMitchell  DMSibley  JT  et al.  The mortality of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1994;37 (4) 481- 494
PubMed
Bureau of Labor Statistics,Consumer Price Index inflation calculator. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. Accessed March 2, 2010
Braithwaite  RSMeltzer  DOKing  JT  JrLeslie  DRoberts  MS What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care 2008;46 (4) 349- 356
PubMed
Murray  CJLEvans  DBAcharya  ABaltussen  RMPM Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000;9 (3) 235- 251
PubMed
Matsui  TShimada  KOzawa  N  et al.  Diagnostic utility of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies for very early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2006;33 (12) 2390- 2397
PubMed
Tanaka  YTakeuchi  TMimori  T  et al. RRR Study Investigators, Extended report: discontinuation of infliximab after attaining low disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: RRR (remission induction by Remicade in RA) study. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69 (7) 1286- 1291
Felson  DTAnderson  JJBoers  M  et al. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials, The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 1993;36 (6) 729- 740
PubMed
Felson  DTAnderson  JJBoers  M  et al.  American College of Rheumatology: preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38 (6) 727- 735
PubMed
Gülfe  AGeborek  PSaxne  T Response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: how useful are they? Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64 (8) 1186- 1189
PubMed
Turnbull  LBrown  SHarvey  I  et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of MRI in Breast Cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;375 (9714) 563- 571
PubMed
Oei  EHGNikken  JJGinai  AZ  et al.  Costs and effectiveness of a brief MRI examination of patients with acute knee injury. Eur Radiol 2009;19 (2) 409- 418
PubMed
Levin  DCRao  VMParker  LFrangos  AJSunshine  JH Ownership or leasing of MRI facilities by nonradiologist physicians is a rapidly growing trend. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5 (2) 105- 109
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Cost-effectiveness of Adding Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Rheumatoid Arthritis Management
Arch Intern Med.2011;171(7):657-667.eAppendix

eAppendix -Download PDF (605 KB). This file requires Adobe Reader®.

eAppendix 1. Structured Interdisciplinary Rounds Communication Tool

eAppendix. Supplementary methods.

eReferences.

eTable 1. Treatment Response Estimates According to Disease Severity, Treatment Duration, and Treatment Tier

eTable 2. One Year and Lifetime RA-Related Costs, QALYs and ICERs for all Risk Assessment Arms, Assuming Hospital Costs, Not Charges

eTable 3. Number Needed to Treat or Harm Estimates

eTable 4. ICERs According to Varying Model Input Assumptions

eFigure 1. One-way sensitivity analysis of all input variables in 12-month model

eFigure 2. Acceptability Curve of the Cost-effectiveness of Adding Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Standard Risk Stratification According to Willingness to Pay for 12-Month Model

eFigure 3. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio Scatterplot of Adding Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Standard Risk Stratification for 12-Month Model

eFigure 4. One-Way Sensitivity Analysis of All Input Variables in Lifetime Model

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 6

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com