Introduction: Minocycline and doxycycline are safe and moderately effective disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in the treatment of early, DMARD-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA), although little is known about their use outside clinical trials. We characterize the use of minocycline and doxycycline in community-dwelling RA patients by examining associated prescribing patterns, patient-level determinants of use, and side-effect profiles. Methods: We studied 15,716 patients with RA observed between 1998 and 2009 while participating in a long-term US observational study. Results: Minocycline or doxycycline was prescribed by 18% of rheumatologists (interquartile range one to two patients per physician) to 9% of RA patients. Significant differences between minocycline-treated and doxycycline-treated patients and nontreated patients included age (58.4 years vs. 59.8 years), RA duration (14.8 years vs. 13.7 years), Caucasian race (93.7% vs. 89.7%), lifetime DMARDs and biologics (3.3 vs. 2.5), prednisone use (40.1% vs. 35.3%), and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Survey physical component summary score (35.0 vs. 36.4). In multivariable Cox regression, patients initiating minocycline or doxycycline had increased disease activity, more comorbidities, and a greater number of prior nonbiologic DMARDs. Side effects were reported by 17.8% of minocycline users and 11.8% of doxycycline users. Skin complaints accounted for 54% of minocycline patient-reported side effects. The most commonly effected organ systems for doxycycline were gastrointestinal (35.4%) and skin (33.7%). Approximately 75% of side effects were of mild or moderate severity. Conclusions: Rheumatologists have not embraced minocycline or doxycycline as primary treatment options for RA and reserve their use primarily in patients with long-standing, refractory disease. These drugs are generally well tolerated, with skin complaints, nausea, and dizziness being the most common patient-reported side effects.

Pharmacist provision of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) through collaborative practice agreements with physicians could expand access to people at risk for HIV. We characterized pharmacists’ familiarity with and willingness to provide PrEP services in Nebraska and Iowa. An invitation to complete an 18-question survey was emailed to 1,140 pharmacists in Nebraska and Iowa in June and July of 2016. Descriptive analyses and Pearson chi-square tests were used to determine to what extent demographics, familiarity and experience were associated with respondent willingness to provide PrEP. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared ages and years of experience between groups of respondents. One hundred forty pharmacists (12.3%) responded. Less than half were familiar with the use of PrEP (42%) or the CDC guidelines for its use (25%). Respondents who were older (p = .015) and in practice longer (p = .005) were less likely to be familiar with PrEP. Overall, 54% indicated they were fairly or very likely to provide PrEP services as part of a collaborative practice agreement and after additional training. While familiarity with PrEP use or guidelines did not affect respondents’ willingness to provide PrEP, respondents were more likely to provide PrEP with prior experience counseling HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy (OR 2.43; p = 0.023) or PrEP (OR 4.67; p = 0.013), and with prior HIV-related continuing education (OR 2.77; p = 0.032). Pharmacist respondents in Nebraska and Iowa had limited familiarity and experience with PrEP, but most indicated willingness to provide PrEP through collaborative practice agreements after additional training. Provision of PrEP-focused continuing education may lead to increased willingness to participate in PrEP programs.

The approval of long-acting injectable cabotegravir/rilpivirine (LAI CAB/RPV) heightened the urgency of ensuring effective implementation. Our study assesses readiness and barriers to implement LAI CAB/RPV across Ryan White–funded clinics in the United States. We conducted a cross-sectional survey between December 2020 and January 2021 using validated 4-item measures: acceptability of intervention measure (AIM), intervention appropriateness measure (IAM), and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM). Associations between measures and clinic characteristics were evaluated via Spearman rank correlations. A 5-point Likert scale ranked potential barriers of implementation responses. Open-ended questions were analyzed through a thematic approach. Of 270 clinics, 44 (16%) completed the survey: 38% federally qualified health centers, 36% academic, 20% community-based organizations, 14% hospital outpatient, and 9% nonprofit. Means (SD; range) were as follows: AIM, 17.6 (2.4; 12–20); IAM, 17.6 (2.4; 13–20); and FIM, 16.8 (2.9; 7–20). Twenty percent were not at all ready to implement LAI CAB/RPV, and 52% were slightly or somewhat ready. There was a significant association between AIM and the proportion of Medicaid patients (AIM, rho = 0.312, P = .050). Community-based organizations scored the highest readiness measures (mean [SD]: AIM, 19.50 [1.41]; IAM, 19.25 [1.49]; FIM, 19.13 [1.36]) as compared with other clinics. Implementation barriers were cost and patients’ nonadherence to visits. There is variability of readiness yet high levels of perceived acceptability and appropriateness of implementing LAI CAB/RPV among Ryan White clinics, necessitating tailored interventions for successful implementation. A special focus on addressing the barriers of adherence and the cost of implementation is needed.

Background: Despite a paucity of evidence to support a multitude of educational innovations, curricular leaders are pressured to find innovative solutions to better prepare medical students for an evolving twenty-first century health care system. As part of this effort, this study directly compared student-rated effectiveness scores of six different learning modalities. Methods: Study participants included 286 medical students enrolled in the second-year rheumatology core at a single academic medical center between 2013 and 2017. Students were surveyed at the end of the core with a 15-item questionnaire, and student perceived effectiveness of six different learning modalities were compared. Results: The modality that outperformed all others was Live Patient Encounters (LPE), with significantly higher student-rated effectiveness scores when compared to the referent modality of Problem-Based Learning (PBL). Using a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from “not effective” to “highly effective,” LPE received a mean effectiveness score of 4.77 followed by Augenblick (4.21), PBL (4.11), Gout Racer video game (3.49), Rheumatology Remedy e-module (3.49), and simulation knee injection (3.09). Conclusions: Technologically advanced novel learning strategies were outperformed in this study by the more traditional active learning modality of LPE. This finding highlights the importance of testing innovative learning strategies at the level of the learner. Three additional conclusions can be drawn from this result. First, conflation of technology with innovation may lead to a myopic view of educational reform. Second, human factors seem to be responsible for the success of LPE and may have far-reaching educational rewards. Third, further applications of LPE should be tested in non-rheumatologic curricula. The relevance of this study is innately tied to the humanities-based application. While a formal qualitative analysis was not performed in this study, preliminary results suggest that live, structured patient interactions in the pre-clinical years of medical education may not only promote the learning of important educational objectives but also foster professional development, empathy, reflection, leadership, agency, and interpersonal skills. This “win-win” scenario (if true) would stand out as a rarity among strategic educational initiatives.