Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 363–367 | Cite as

Differences between the United States and the United Kingdom in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: analyses from a hand arthroplasty trial

  • Kevin C. Chung
  • Sandra V. Kotsis
  • David A. Fox
  • Marian Regan
  • Frank D. Burke
  • E. F. Shaw Wilgis
  • H. Myra Kim
Original Article


Previous studies have found differences in rheumatoid hand surgical practice around the world. The specific aim of this study is to compare baseline characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) that may be influenced by the two different health-care systems. Patients were recruited from three sites (two in the US and one in England) as part of a National Institutes of Health funded study to examine outcomes of silicone metacarpophalangeal joint (MCPJ) arthroplasty in RA patients. Outcomes measurements included biomechanical assessments (grip strength, pinch strength, and mean ulnar drift and extensor lag at the MCPJs of all four fingers), a health-related quality of life questionnaire (the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire), and a medication assessment. American patients have a significantly higher income level (p < 0.001) and have completed higher levels of education (p < 0.001) than British patients. There were no significant differences in terms of self-reported disease severity or deformity at the MCPJs. RA patients in the US are more likely to take biologic medications (p < 0.001), steroids (p = 0.02), and Cox-2 inhibitors (p = 0.02). Patients in the UK are significantly more likely (p < 0.001) to take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. There are differences in the demographic characteristics and medication use of RA patients with hand deformities in the US and UK. These differences may be influenced by the private versus socialized health-care systems. However, the perception of hand disease severity in participants in this study appears to be comparable between these countries.


Health-care systems Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire Rheumatoid hand United Kingdom United States 


  1. 1.
    Alderman AK, Chung KC, Kim HM, Fox DA, Ubel PA (2003) Effectiveness of rheumatoid hand surgery: contrasting perceptions of hand surgeons and rheumatologists. J Hand Surg 28A:3–11Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alderman AK, Ubel PA, Kim HM, Fox DA, Chung KC (2003) Surgical management of the rheumatoid hand: consensus and controversy among rheumatologists and hand surgeons. J Rheumatol 30:1464–1472PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alderman AK, Chung KC, DeMonner S, Spilson SV, Hayward RA (2001) Large area variations in the surgical management of the rheumatoid hand. Surg Forum LII:479–481Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alderman AK, Chung KC, Demonner S, Spilson SV, Hayward RA (2002) The rheumatoid hand: a predictable disease with unpredictable surgical practice patterns. Arthritis Rheum 47:537–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kotsis SV, Chung KC (2005) A qualitative assessment of rheumatoid hand surgery in various regions of the world. J Hand Surg. 30A:649–657Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jonsson B, Kobelt G, Smolen J (2008) The burden of rheumatoid arthritis and access to treatment: uptake of new therapies. Eur J Health Econ 8(Suppl 2):S61–S86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chung KC, Burns PB, Wilgis EF, Burke FD, Regan M, Kim HM, Fox DA (2009) A multicenter clinical trial in rheumatoid arthritis comparing silicone metacarpophalangeal joint arthroplasty with medical treatment. J Hand Surg 34A:815–823Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chung KC (2008) Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. Accessed January 8
  9. 9.
    Alderman AK, Arora AS, Kuhn L, Wei Y, Chung KC (2006) An analysis of women's and men's surgical priorities and willingness to have rheumatoid hand surgery. J Hand Surg 31A:1447–1453Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chung KC, Kotsis SV, Kim HM (2004) A prospective outcomes study of Swanson metacarpophalangeal joint arthroplasty for the rheumatoid hand. J Hand Surg 29A:646–653Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chung KC, Kotsis SV, Kim HM, Burke FD, Wilgis EF (2006) Reasons why rheumatoid arthritis patients seek surgical treatment for hand deformities. J Hand Surg 31A:289–294Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siemiatycki J (1979) A comparison of mail, telephone and home interview strategies for household health surveys. Am J Public Health 69:238–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guadagnoli E, Cleary PD (1992) Age-related item nonresponse in surveys of recently discharged patients. J Gerontol 47:206–212Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lingard EA, Sledge CB, Learmonth ID (2006) Patient expectations regarding total knee arthroplasty: differences among the United States, United kingdom, and Australia. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1201–1207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Banks J, Marmot M, Oldfield Z, Smith JP (2006) Disease and disadvantage in the United States and in England. JAMA 295:2037–2045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lipton RB, Scher AI, Steiner TJ et al (2003) Patterns of health care utilization for migraine in England and in the United States. Neurology 60:441–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dixon J, Chantler C, Billings J (2007) Competition on outcomes and physician leadership are not enough to reform health care. JAMA 298:1445–1447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ostrom CM (2008) The newest generation of drugs: who can afford them? The Seattle Times, 2008. Accessed March 30, 2009
  19. 19.
    Jonsson B (2008) Patient access to rheumatoid arthritis treatments. Eur J Health Econ 8(Suppl 2):S35–S38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cooke J, Mason AR, Drummond MF, Towse AK (2005) Medication management in English National Health Service hospitals. Am J Health Syst Pharm 62:189–195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rawlins M (1999) In pursuit of quality: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 353:1079–1082CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pearson SD, Rawlins MD (2005) Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 294:2618–2622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Commission A (1994) A prescription for improvement. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McKinlay J, Link C, Marceau L et al (2006) How do doctors in different countries manage the same patient? Results of a factorial experiment. Health Serv Res 41:2182–2200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wolf-Maier K, Cooper RS, Banegas JR et al (2003) Hypertension prevalence and blood pressure levels in 6 European countries, Canada, and the United States. JAMA 289:2363–2369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lundqvist J, Kastang F, Kobelt G, Jonsson B (2008) The burden of rheumatoid arthritis and access to treatment: determinants of access. Eur J Health Econ 8(Suppl 2):S87–S93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coyle D, Judd M, Blumenauer B et al (2006) Infliximab and etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, OttawaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Clinical Rheumatology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin C. Chung
    • 1
  • Sandra V. Kotsis
    • 1
  • David A. Fox
    • 2
  • Marian Regan
    • 3
  • Frank D. Burke
    • 4
  • E. F. Shaw Wilgis
    • 5
  • H. Myra Kim
    • 6
  1. 1.Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of RheumatologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Derbyshire Royal InfirmaryDerbyUK
  4. 4.Pulvertaft Hand CentreDerbyUK
  5. 5.Curtis National Hand CenterBaltimoreUSA
  6. 6.Center for Statistical Consultation and ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations