DENVER – Oral low-dose isotretinoin in combination with pulsed dye laser achieves high percentage of papulopustular rosacea clearance with a low risk of side effects, results from a single-center study found.

“Rosacea has been classically treated with topical and oral antibiotics, retinoids or ivermectin, and it is really important to enhance laser contribution for rosacea clearance,” lead study author Natalia Jiménez Gómez, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Our work points to the high efficacy of a scarcely published combination treatment: low-dose oral isotretinoin and pulsed dye laser. Moreover, this combined treatment is employed in papulopustular rosacea, a clinical form that is usually treated without employing physical methods.”

For the study, Dr. Gómez and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed 40 patients with moderate or severe papulopustular rosacea who underwent concomitant treatment of pulsed dye laser and low-dose oral isotretinoin (5-10 mg/day). Pulsed dye laser sessions were performed with a 10-mm spot size at a pulse duration of 0.5 milliseconds delivered at a fluence of 8 J/cm² every 3-4 weeks in combination with low-dose oral isotretinoin during 4- to 6-month periods. The treatment endpoint was purpura. Five patients were withdrawn from the analysis because of loss to follow-up or to a lack of clinical images.

All 35 patients achieved a complete clearance of papulopustular lesions of rosacea within 7-10 days, said Dr. Gómez, who practices at the Madrid-based Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal. The researchers did not observe any permanent adverse events such as scarring, hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation.

“The most surprising finding was the high percentage of rosacea clearance obtained with the combined treatment, considering that all the patients were previously nonresponsive to oral low-dose isotretinoin monotherapy,” Dr. Gómez said. “This finding highlights the important role of pulsed dye laser.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and small sample size. “It would also be interesting to compare pulsed dye laser with intense pulsed light, so that we can conclude if one of them is more effective than the other when we combine it with low dose oral isotretinoin,” she said.

Dr. Gómez reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

DENVER – Oral low-dose isotretinoin in combination with pulsed dye laser achieves high percentage of papulopustular rosacea clearance with a low risk of side effects, results from a single-center study found.

“Rosacea has been classically treated with topical and oral antibiotics, retinoids or ivermectin, and it is really important to enhance laser contribution for rosacea clearance,” lead study author Natalia Jiménez Gómez, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Our work points to the high efficacy of a scarcely published combination treatment: low-dose oral isotretinoin and pulsed dye laser. Moreover, this combined treatment is employed in papulopustular rosacea, a clinical form that is usually treated without employing physical methods.”

For the study, Dr. Gómez and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed 40 patients with moderate or severe papulopustular rosacea who underwent concomitant treatment of pulsed dye laser and low-dose oral isotretinoin (5-10 mg/day). Pulsed dye laser sessions were performed with a 10-mm spot size at a pulse duration of 0.5 milliseconds delivered at a fluence of 8 J/cm² every 3-4 weeks in combination with low-dose oral isotretinoin during 4- to 6-month periods. The treatment endpoint was purpura. Five patients were withdrawn from the analysis because of loss to follow-up or to a lack of clinical images.

All 35 patients achieved a complete clearance of papulopustular lesions of rosacea within 7-10 days, said Dr. Gómez, who practices at the Madrid-based Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal. The researchers did not observe any permanent adverse events such as scarring, hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation.

“The most surprising finding was the high percentage of rosacea clearance obtained with the combined treatment, considering that all the patients were previously nonresponsive to oral low-dose isotretinoin monotherapy,” Dr. Gómez said. “This finding highlights the important role of pulsed dye laser.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and small sample size. “It would also be interesting to compare pulsed dye laser with intense pulsed light, so that we can conclude if one of them is more effective than the other when we combine it with low dose oral isotretinoin,” she said.

Dr. Gómez reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

DENVER – Oral low-dose isotretinoin in combination with pulsed dye laser achieves high percentage of papulopustular rosacea clearance with a low risk of side effects, results from a single-center study found.

“Rosacea has been classically treated with topical and oral antibiotics, retinoids or ivermectin, and it is really important to enhance laser contribution for rosacea clearance,” lead study author Natalia Jiménez Gómez, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Our work points to the high efficacy of a scarcely published combination treatment: low-dose oral isotretinoin and pulsed dye laser. Moreover, this combined treatment is employed in papulopustular rosacea, a clinical form that is usually treated without employing physical methods.”

For the study, Dr. Gómez and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed 40 patients with moderate or severe papulopustular rosacea who underwent concomitant treatment of pulsed dye laser and low-dose oral isotretinoin (5-10 mg/day). Pulsed dye laser sessions were performed with a 10-mm spot size at a pulse duration of 0.5 milliseconds delivered at a fluence of 8 J/cm² every 3-4 weeks in combination with low-dose oral isotretinoin during 4- to 6-month periods. The treatment endpoint was purpura. Five patients were withdrawn from the analysis because of loss to follow-up or to a lack of clinical images.

All 35 patients achieved a complete clearance of papulopustular lesions of rosacea within 7-10 days, said Dr. Gómez, who practices at the Madrid-based Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal. The researchers did not observe any permanent adverse events such as scarring, hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation.

“The most surprising finding was the high percentage of rosacea clearance obtained with the combined treatment, considering that all the patients were previously nonresponsive to oral low-dose isotretinoin monotherapy,” Dr. Gómez said. “This finding highlights the important role of pulsed dye laser.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and small sample size. “It would also be interesting to compare pulsed dye laser with intense pulsed light, so that we can conclude if one of them is more effective than the other when we combine it with low dose oral isotretinoin,” she said.

Dr. Gómez reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – The announcement of a first-ever multicenter randomized trial of ACE inhibitors for the treatment of cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus patients generated some of the biggest buzz at LUPUS 2019.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The time has come to implement clinical trials in lupus to see if we can address what is one of the most distressing aspects of the disease to patients,” Betty Diamond, MD, said in announcing the planned trial at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Neuropsychiatric lupus, characterized most often by cognitive impairment, affects 40%-90% of SLE patients, according to various epidemiologic studies. This confusion and memory loss has been shown to be independent of systemic disease activity.

“Cognitive impairment is a very common problem and a very insidious problem in lupus patients,” emphasized Dr. Diamond, professor and head of the Center for Autoimmune Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York.

Dr. Diamond was the recipient of the 2018 Lupus Insight Prize awarded by the Lupus Research Alliance, which is funding the multicenter randomized trial. For the study, roughly 70 SLE patients with cognitive impairment not associated with a focal brain lesion will be randomized to receive a centrally acting ACE inhibitor – captopril was the one she and her coinvestigators have used in their mouse model and preliminary clinical studies – or to a non–centrally acting ACE inhibitor, such as enalapril.

“The clinical trial compares an ACE inhibitor that crosses the blood-brain barrier with one that doesn’t. They both have the same renal protection and systemic anti-inflammatory effects,” explained Dr. Diamond, who is also professor of molecular medicine and of medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, East Garden City, N.Y.

In a recent publication (J Exp Med. 2018 Oct 1;215[10]:2554-66), Dr. Diamond and her coinvestigators presented much of the background work that underpins the upcoming randomized trial. Sixteen years ago, they discovered two anti-DNA antibodies that cross-react with the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) and enhance NMDAR signaling. They showed that while the NMDARs are critical in learning and memory, their prolonged stimulation results in a high degree of calcium influx, causing neuronal death. These anti-DNA/anti-NMDAR antibodies, known as DNRAbs, are present at elevated titers in 30%-40% of SLE patients, and in a higher proportion of those with neuropsychiatric lupus.

“Most importantly, DNRAbs are present in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients who have nonfocal CNS manifestations of lupus,” Dr. Diamond said.

She and her coworkers developed a mouse model of cognitive impairment in lupus and utilized it to identify a two-stage model of the pathogenesis of DNRAb-mediated neuropsychiatric lupus. First, a traumatic event such as an infection causes a temporary opening in the blood-brain barrier, allowing the DNRAbs to reach the brain. This results in acute excitotoxic neuronal death. This is followed by a second stage, which entails activation of microglia – known as the macrophages of the CNS – with resultant loss of neuronal dendritic arborization and complexity. In the mouse model, this causes a selective impairment in spatial memory that corresponds well to the spatial memory deficit the investigators documented in DNRAb-positive SLE patients, compared with healthy controls and DNRAb-negative lupus patients.

A key finding in this project, Dr. Diamond continued, was that activated microglia turn out to be critical for dendritic loss. If the microglia are deactivated, regrowth of the dendritic processes occurs. This raises a possibility that attendees at LUPUS 2019 found thrilling: Perhaps the cognitive impairment of neuropsychiatric SLE can be prevented and even reversed by suppressing microglial activation.

Promising work in the field of Alzheimer’s disease suggests that centrally acting ACE inhibitors can indeed suppress microglial activation and actually improve cognition. Dr. Diamond and her colleagues showed this also was the case in their mouse model. Moreover, in a small clinical study they used PET brain imaging to show that captopril reduced the increased glucose uptake and hippocampal hypermetabolism associated with DNRAb-positive neuropsychiatric lupus, an effect maintained through 18 months of follow-up.

“We think DNRAbs contribute to cognitive impairment in SLE patients, but we certainly wouldn’t say that antibodies are the only mechanism. Other investigators have shown that interferon can also do this, and that, like the antibodies, interferon acts through microglial activation. We think that this microglial activation is going to be a general paradigm in cognitive impairment in lupus and in other diseases, so microglia are a very good therapeutic target,” Dr. Diamond said.

The primary outcomes in the forthcoming randomized trial involve PET neuronal imaging. They investigators are hoping to see reduced hippocampal hypermetabolism and suppression of activated microglial cells.

“We’ll see if we’re actually hitting our target. We’re doing neuropsychologic testing, too, but we’re really concentrating on imaging outcomes, because those are objective and have many fewer variables to confound them,” according to Dr. Diamond.

Microglial activation is a current topic of intense research interest within the pharmaceutical industry, she added. If the imaging study is positive, she anticipates drug companies will quickly ramp up and conduct large clinical trials powered to show significant results in terms of neuropsychologic test scores and clinical outcomes.

Dr. Diamond reported having no financial conflicts regarding her work, which has been supported largely by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – The announcement of a first-ever multicenter randomized trial of ACE inhibitors for the treatment of cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus patients generated some of the biggest buzz at LUPUS 2019.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The time has come to implement clinical trials in lupus to see if we can address what is one of the most distressing aspects of the disease to patients,” Betty Diamond, MD, said in announcing the planned trial at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Neuropsychiatric lupus, characterized most often by cognitive impairment, affects 40%-90% of SLE patients, according to various epidemiologic studies. This confusion and memory loss has been shown to be independent of systemic disease activity.

“Cognitive impairment is a very common problem and a very insidious problem in lupus patients,” emphasized Dr. Diamond, professor and head of the Center for Autoimmune Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York.

Dr. Diamond was the recipient of the 2018 Lupus Insight Prize awarded by the Lupus Research Alliance, which is funding the multicenter randomized trial. For the study, roughly 70 SLE patients with cognitive impairment not associated with a focal brain lesion will be randomized to receive a centrally acting ACE inhibitor – captopril was the one she and her coinvestigators have used in their mouse model and preliminary clinical studies – or to a non–centrally acting ACE inhibitor, such as enalapril.

“The clinical trial compares an ACE inhibitor that crosses the blood-brain barrier with one that doesn’t. They both have the same renal protection and systemic anti-inflammatory effects,” explained Dr. Diamond, who is also professor of molecular medicine and of medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, East Garden City, N.Y.

In a recent publication (J Exp Med. 2018 Oct 1;215[10]:2554-66), Dr. Diamond and her coinvestigators presented much of the background work that underpins the upcoming randomized trial. Sixteen years ago, they discovered two anti-DNA antibodies that cross-react with the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) and enhance NMDAR signaling. They showed that while the NMDARs are critical in learning and memory, their prolonged stimulation results in a high degree of calcium influx, causing neuronal death. These anti-DNA/anti-NMDAR antibodies, known as DNRAbs, are present at elevated titers in 30%-40% of SLE patients, and in a higher proportion of those with neuropsychiatric lupus.

“Most importantly, DNRAbs are present in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients who have nonfocal CNS manifestations of lupus,” Dr. Diamond said.

She and her coworkers developed a mouse model of cognitive impairment in lupus and utilized it to identify a two-stage model of the pathogenesis of DNRAb-mediated neuropsychiatric lupus. First, a traumatic event such as an infection causes a temporary opening in the blood-brain barrier, allowing the DNRAbs to reach the brain. This results in acute excitotoxic neuronal death. This is followed by a second stage, which entails activation of microglia – known as the macrophages of the CNS – with resultant loss of neuronal dendritic arborization and complexity. In the mouse model, this causes a selective impairment in spatial memory that corresponds well to the spatial memory deficit the investigators documented in DNRAb-positive SLE patients, compared with healthy controls and DNRAb-negative lupus patients.

A key finding in this project, Dr. Diamond continued, was that activated microglia turn out to be critical for dendritic loss. If the microglia are deactivated, regrowth of the dendritic processes occurs. This raises a possibility that attendees at LUPUS 2019 found thrilling: Perhaps the cognitive impairment of neuropsychiatric SLE can be prevented and even reversed by suppressing microglial activation.

Promising work in the field of Alzheimer’s disease suggests that centrally acting ACE inhibitors can indeed suppress microglial activation and actually improve cognition. Dr. Diamond and her colleagues showed this also was the case in their mouse model. Moreover, in a small clinical study they used PET brain imaging to show that captopril reduced the increased glucose uptake and hippocampal hypermetabolism associated with DNRAb-positive neuropsychiatric lupus, an effect maintained through 18 months of follow-up.

“We think DNRAbs contribute to cognitive impairment in SLE patients, but we certainly wouldn’t say that antibodies are the only mechanism. Other investigators have shown that interferon can also do this, and that, like the antibodies, interferon acts through microglial activation. We think that this microglial activation is going to be a general paradigm in cognitive impairment in lupus and in other diseases, so microglia are a very good therapeutic target,” Dr. Diamond said.

The primary outcomes in the forthcoming randomized trial involve PET neuronal imaging. They investigators are hoping to see reduced hippocampal hypermetabolism and suppression of activated microglial cells.

“We’ll see if we’re actually hitting our target. We’re doing neuropsychologic testing, too, but we’re really concentrating on imaging outcomes, because those are objective and have many fewer variables to confound them,” according to Dr. Diamond.

Microglial activation is a current topic of intense research interest within the pharmaceutical industry, she added. If the imaging study is positive, she anticipates drug companies will quickly ramp up and conduct large clinical trials powered to show significant results in terms of neuropsychologic test scores and clinical outcomes.

Dr. Diamond reported having no financial conflicts regarding her work, which has been supported largely by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – The announcement of a first-ever multicenter randomized trial of ACE inhibitors for the treatment of cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus patients generated some of the biggest buzz at LUPUS 2019.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The time has come to implement clinical trials in lupus to see if we can address what is one of the most distressing aspects of the disease to patients,” Betty Diamond, MD, said in announcing the planned trial at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Neuropsychiatric lupus, characterized most often by cognitive impairment, affects 40%-90% of SLE patients, according to various epidemiologic studies. This confusion and memory loss has been shown to be independent of systemic disease activity.

“Cognitive impairment is a very common problem and a very insidious problem in lupus patients,” emphasized Dr. Diamond, professor and head of the Center for Autoimmune Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York.

Dr. Diamond was the recipient of the 2018 Lupus Insight Prize awarded by the Lupus Research Alliance, which is funding the multicenter randomized trial. For the study, roughly 70 SLE patients with cognitive impairment not associated with a focal brain lesion will be randomized to receive a centrally acting ACE inhibitor – captopril was the one she and her coinvestigators have used in their mouse model and preliminary clinical studies – or to a non–centrally acting ACE inhibitor, such as enalapril.

“The clinical trial compares an ACE inhibitor that crosses the blood-brain barrier with one that doesn’t. They both have the same renal protection and systemic anti-inflammatory effects,” explained Dr. Diamond, who is also professor of molecular medicine and of medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, East Garden City, N.Y.

In a recent publication (J Exp Med. 2018 Oct 1;215[10]:2554-66), Dr. Diamond and her coinvestigators presented much of the background work that underpins the upcoming randomized trial. Sixteen years ago, they discovered two anti-DNA antibodies that cross-react with the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) and enhance NMDAR signaling. They showed that while the NMDARs are critical in learning and memory, their prolonged stimulation results in a high degree of calcium influx, causing neuronal death. These anti-DNA/anti-NMDAR antibodies, known as DNRAbs, are present at elevated titers in 30%-40% of SLE patients, and in a higher proportion of those with neuropsychiatric lupus.

“Most importantly, DNRAbs are present in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients who have nonfocal CNS manifestations of lupus,” Dr. Diamond said.

She and her coworkers developed a mouse model of cognitive impairment in lupus and utilized it to identify a two-stage model of the pathogenesis of DNRAb-mediated neuropsychiatric lupus. First, a traumatic event such as an infection causes a temporary opening in the blood-brain barrier, allowing the DNRAbs to reach the brain. This results in acute excitotoxic neuronal death. This is followed by a second stage, which entails activation of microglia – known as the macrophages of the CNS – with resultant loss of neuronal dendritic arborization and complexity. In the mouse model, this causes a selective impairment in spatial memory that corresponds well to the spatial memory deficit the investigators documented in DNRAb-positive SLE patients, compared with healthy controls and DNRAb-negative lupus patients.

A key finding in this project, Dr. Diamond continued, was that activated microglia turn out to be critical for dendritic loss. If the microglia are deactivated, regrowth of the dendritic processes occurs. This raises a possibility that attendees at LUPUS 2019 found thrilling: Perhaps the cognitive impairment of neuropsychiatric SLE can be prevented and even reversed by suppressing microglial activation.

Promising work in the field of Alzheimer’s disease suggests that centrally acting ACE inhibitors can indeed suppress microglial activation and actually improve cognition. Dr. Diamond and her colleagues showed this also was the case in their mouse model. Moreover, in a small clinical study they used PET brain imaging to show that captopril reduced the increased glucose uptake and hippocampal hypermetabolism associated with DNRAb-positive neuropsychiatric lupus, an effect maintained through 18 months of follow-up.

“We think DNRAbs contribute to cognitive impairment in SLE patients, but we certainly wouldn’t say that antibodies are the only mechanism. Other investigators have shown that interferon can also do this, and that, like the antibodies, interferon acts through microglial activation. We think that this microglial activation is going to be a general paradigm in cognitive impairment in lupus and in other diseases, so microglia are a very good therapeutic target,” Dr. Diamond said.

The primary outcomes in the forthcoming randomized trial involve PET neuronal imaging. They investigators are hoping to see reduced hippocampal hypermetabolism and suppression of activated microglial cells.

“We’ll see if we’re actually hitting our target. We’re doing neuropsychologic testing, too, but we’re really concentrating on imaging outcomes, because those are objective and have many fewer variables to confound them,” according to Dr. Diamond.

Microglial activation is a current topic of intense research interest within the pharmaceutical industry, she added. If the imaging study is positive, she anticipates drug companies will quickly ramp up and conduct large clinical trials powered to show significant results in terms of neuropsychologic test scores and clinical outcomes.

Dr. Diamond reported having no financial conflicts regarding her work, which has been supported largely by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Nearly 7%-10% of the general population experiences neuropathic pain, but studies on treatments have not found a clear winner for reducing this “burning or electriclike pain,” explained Raymond Price, MD, during a presentation.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

“It isn’t that exciting,” said Dr. Price, associate professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in reference to his review of level 1-2 evidence for treatment of neuropathic pain that was presented in a study published in JAMA (2015 Nov 24;314[20]:2172-81). a few years ago. “On a scale of 1 to 10, you can reduce their pain scale by 1-2 points more than placebo,” he told his audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“In general, you can use any of these medicines [for neuropathic pain]. There are very limited head-to-head data as to which one is actually better,” he explained.

Given the absence of robust head-to-head trial data, Dr. Price tends to start a lot of patients on old, cheap medications like nortriptyline.

While there aren’t many head-to-head trials to guide treatment choice, the results of one prospective, randomized, open-label study of 333 patients with cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy was presented by Barohn and colleagues at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, he said. In that study, somewhat higher efficacy rates were seen with duloxetine, a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, and nortriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, compared with pregabalin, Dr. Price noted. Duloxetine and nortriptyline also had slightly better tolerability, as evidenced by a lower quit rate, compared with pregabalin, he added.

There was also a systematic review and meta-analysis (Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb; 14[2]:162-73) conducted that determined the number needed to treat for neuropathic pain treatments, Dr. Price noted. In that paper, tricyclic antidepressants had a number needed to treat of 3.6, comparing favorably to 7.7 for pregabalin, 7.2 for gabapentin, and 6.4 for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine, said Dr. Price.

Regardless of the cause of neuropathic pain, the same general approach to treatment is taken, though most of the evidence comes from studies of patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, he added.

For these patients, an adequate trial of a neuropathic pain treatment should be 6-12 weeks, reflecting the length of the intervention needed to demonstrate the efficacy of these agents, he said.

If that first drug doesn’t work, another can be tried, or multiple drugs can be tried together to see if the patient’s condition improves, he said.

Dr. Price reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Price R Internal Medicine 2019, Presentation MSFM 002.

PHILADELPHIA – Nearly 7%-10% of the general population experiences neuropathic pain, but studies on treatments have not found a clear winner for reducing this “burning or electriclike pain,” explained Raymond Price, MD, during a presentation.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

“It isn’t that exciting,” said Dr. Price, associate professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in reference to his review of level 1-2 evidence for treatment of neuropathic pain that was presented in a study published in JAMA (2015 Nov 24;314[20]:2172-81). a few years ago. “On a scale of 1 to 10, you can reduce their pain scale by 1-2 points more than placebo,” he told his audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“In general, you can use any of these medicines [for neuropathic pain]. There are very limited head-to-head data as to which one is actually better,” he explained.

Given the absence of robust head-to-head trial data, Dr. Price tends to start a lot of patients on old, cheap medications like nortriptyline.

While there aren’t many head-to-head trials to guide treatment choice, the results of one prospective, randomized, open-label study of 333 patients with cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy was presented by Barohn and colleagues at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, he said. In that study, somewhat higher efficacy rates were seen with duloxetine, a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, and nortriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, compared with pregabalin, Dr. Price noted. Duloxetine and nortriptyline also had slightly better tolerability, as evidenced by a lower quit rate, compared with pregabalin, he added.

There was also a systematic review and meta-analysis (Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb; 14[2]:162-73) conducted that determined the number needed to treat for neuropathic pain treatments, Dr. Price noted. In that paper, tricyclic antidepressants had a number needed to treat of 3.6, comparing favorably to 7.7 for pregabalin, 7.2 for gabapentin, and 6.4 for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine, said Dr. Price.

Regardless of the cause of neuropathic pain, the same general approach to treatment is taken, though most of the evidence comes from studies of patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, he added.

For these patients, an adequate trial of a neuropathic pain treatment should be 6-12 weeks, reflecting the length of the intervention needed to demonstrate the efficacy of these agents, he said.

If that first drug doesn’t work, another can be tried, or multiple drugs can be tried together to see if the patient’s condition improves, he said.

Dr. Price reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Price R Internal Medicine 2019, Presentation MSFM 002.

PHILADELPHIA – Nearly 7%-10% of the general population experiences neuropathic pain, but studies on treatments have not found a clear winner for reducing this “burning or electriclike pain,” explained Raymond Price, MD, during a presentation.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

“It isn’t that exciting,” said Dr. Price, associate professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in reference to his review of level 1-2 evidence for treatment of neuropathic pain that was presented in a study published in JAMA (2015 Nov 24;314[20]:2172-81). a few years ago. “On a scale of 1 to 10, you can reduce their pain scale by 1-2 points more than placebo,” he told his audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“In general, you can use any of these medicines [for neuropathic pain]. There are very limited head-to-head data as to which one is actually better,” he explained.

Given the absence of robust head-to-head trial data, Dr. Price tends to start a lot of patients on old, cheap medications like nortriptyline.

While there aren’t many head-to-head trials to guide treatment choice, the results of one prospective, randomized, open-label study of 333 patients with cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy was presented by Barohn and colleagues at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, he said. In that study, somewhat higher efficacy rates were seen with duloxetine, a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, and nortriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, compared with pregabalin, Dr. Price noted. Duloxetine and nortriptyline also had slightly better tolerability, as evidenced by a lower quit rate, compared with pregabalin, he added.

There was also a systematic review and meta-analysis (Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb; 14[2]:162-73) conducted that determined the number needed to treat for neuropathic pain treatments, Dr. Price noted. In that paper, tricyclic antidepressants had a number needed to treat of 3.6, comparing favorably to 7.7 for pregabalin, 7.2 for gabapentin, and 6.4 for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine, said Dr. Price.

Regardless of the cause of neuropathic pain, the same general approach to treatment is taken, though most of the evidence comes from studies of patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, he added.

For these patients, an adequate trial of a neuropathic pain treatment should be 6-12 weeks, reflecting the length of the intervention needed to demonstrate the efficacy of these agents, he said.

If that first drug doesn’t work, another can be tried, or multiple drugs can be tried together to see if the patient’s condition improves, he said.

Dr. Price reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Price R Internal Medicine 2019, Presentation MSFM 002.

SAN FRANCISCO – A telemedicine platform that connects patients to registered dietitians is providing a solution for a number of interrelated unmet needs, according to a description at the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Although not limited to patients with gastrointestinal diseases, the applications of this platform are illustrative of the value to both patients and the physicians who prescribe diet as part of the management of chronic conditions, according to Jonah Cohen, MD, who is a founder of the digital therapeutics company Nutrimedy, which created the platform for virtual nutritional counseling.

“As gastroenterologists, we are experts in the function of the gastrointestinal tract but not necessarily in nutrition. Most physicians get very little training in this area,” said Dr. Cohen, who is a gastroenterologist affiliated with Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Even for those physicians who have expertise and an interest in nutrition, dietary counseling requires a substantial investment of time and continuity to affect behavior change. Helping patients develop an effective diet and implementation strategy to which they are willing to adhere is not a simple task. It requires recognizing and managing nuanced preferences and tastes. For most patients, frequent engagement with an expert is essential to remain on track.

“Nutrimedy’s proprietary matching system connects patients to their ideal dietitian who will help establish a specific nutrition plan for their medical conditions through video visits, unlimited messaging, photo food logs, recipes, and biometric trackers,” Dr. Cohen explained. “The key to the success of these relationships is based on the ease of clinical touch points we’re able to achieve through telenutrition when patients can ask questions, make modifications, and get positive feedback on their own time.”

Launched in 2016, Nutrimedy now has over 1,000 dietitians on its roster and a HIPAA-compliant device-agnostic platform to deliver best-in-class nutritional care remotely.

“The breadth of expertise of our providers enables us to provide medical nutrition therapy across a range of conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), celiac disease, acid reflux, fatty liver disease, and gastroparesis to name just several, for patients anytime, anywhere,” according to Dr. Cohen.

In many places within the United States, there are few expert nutritionists with the specific expertise needed to manage a disease condition like IBS through low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols) diet, and thus appointments are often hard to get for these providers, according to Dr. Cohen. Moreover, he explained that office visits are not just inconvenient but can be an obstacle to a successfully implemented dietary plan.

Other challenges may include cultural or language barriers. Dr. Cohen gave the example of Sophia, a busy mother of two with IBS, who is vegetarian, eats predominantly Spanish cuisine, lives in rural Massachusetts, and speaks Spanish. She prefers not to take medications and hopes to better manage her condition with a low FODMAP diet.

Nutrimedy draws on its roster of registered dietitians to find a good match for patients like Sophia. “Our vision is that everyone deserves to have an expert literally in their back pocket to help them on their journey to better health through food as medicine,” Dr. Cohen explained. He called Nutrimedy “a turn-key solution for GI practices who want to improve medical nutrition therapy for their patients.”

According to Dr. Cohen, Nutrimedy has already proven effective for its core mission of making effective nutritional counseling easier to obtain, and is now working to extend its reach. For example, Dr. Cohen said that the company has actively engaged with employers to provide corporate wellness solutions, and it is partnering with pharmaceutical and other life sciences companies who offer therapies relevant to nutritional health where Nutrimedy has potential to serve as a digital therapeutic companion.

“In almost every chronic condition, diet plays an important role in disease prevention or management,” said Dr. Cohen who believes his company is participating in the effort to reduce the burden of chronic disease related to poor diet. “I feel that in 2019 we’re at a tipping point where health care entities are finally recognizing that we can transform wellness in America through healthier eating.” He believes that Nutrimedy is poised “to play a part in this revolution.

SAN FRANCISCO – A telemedicine platform that connects patients to registered dietitians is providing a solution for a number of interrelated unmet needs, according to a description at the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Although not limited to patients with gastrointestinal diseases, the applications of this platform are illustrative of the value to both patients and the physicians who prescribe diet as part of the management of chronic conditions, according to Jonah Cohen, MD, who is a founder of the digital therapeutics company Nutrimedy, which created the platform for virtual nutritional counseling.

“As gastroenterologists, we are experts in the function of the gastrointestinal tract but not necessarily in nutrition. Most physicians get very little training in this area,” said Dr. Cohen, who is a gastroenterologist affiliated with Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Even for those physicians who have expertise and an interest in nutrition, dietary counseling requires a substantial investment of time and continuity to affect behavior change. Helping patients develop an effective diet and implementation strategy to which they are willing to adhere is not a simple task. It requires recognizing and managing nuanced preferences and tastes. For most patients, frequent engagement with an expert is essential to remain on track.

“Nutrimedy’s proprietary matching system connects patients to their ideal dietitian who will help establish a specific nutrition plan for their medical conditions through video visits, unlimited messaging, photo food logs, recipes, and biometric trackers,” Dr. Cohen explained. “The key to the success of these relationships is based on the ease of clinical touch points we’re able to achieve through telenutrition when patients can ask questions, make modifications, and get positive feedback on their own time.”

Launched in 2016, Nutrimedy now has over 1,000 dietitians on its roster and a HIPAA-compliant device-agnostic platform to deliver best-in-class nutritional care remotely.

“The breadth of expertise of our providers enables us to provide medical nutrition therapy across a range of conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), celiac disease, acid reflux, fatty liver disease, and gastroparesis to name just several, for patients anytime, anywhere,” according to Dr. Cohen.

In many places within the United States, there are few expert nutritionists with the specific expertise needed to manage a disease condition like IBS through low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols) diet, and thus appointments are often hard to get for these providers, according to Dr. Cohen. Moreover, he explained that office visits are not just inconvenient but can be an obstacle to a successfully implemented dietary plan.

Other challenges may include cultural or language barriers. Dr. Cohen gave the example of Sophia, a busy mother of two with IBS, who is vegetarian, eats predominantly Spanish cuisine, lives in rural Massachusetts, and speaks Spanish. She prefers not to take medications and hopes to better manage her condition with a low FODMAP diet.

Nutrimedy draws on its roster of registered dietitians to find a good match for patients like Sophia. “Our vision is that everyone deserves to have an expert literally in their back pocket to help them on their journey to better health through food as medicine,” Dr. Cohen explained. He called Nutrimedy “a turn-key solution for GI practices who want to improve medical nutrition therapy for their patients.”

According to Dr. Cohen, Nutrimedy has already proven effective for its core mission of making effective nutritional counseling easier to obtain, and is now working to extend its reach. For example, Dr. Cohen said that the company has actively engaged with employers to provide corporate wellness solutions, and it is partnering with pharmaceutical and other life sciences companies who offer therapies relevant to nutritional health where Nutrimedy has potential to serve as a digital therapeutic companion.

“In almost every chronic condition, diet plays an important role in disease prevention or management,” said Dr. Cohen who believes his company is participating in the effort to reduce the burden of chronic disease related to poor diet. “I feel that in 2019 we’re at a tipping point where health care entities are finally recognizing that we can transform wellness in America through healthier eating.” He believes that Nutrimedy is poised “to play a part in this revolution.

SAN FRANCISCO – A telemedicine platform that connects patients to registered dietitians is providing a solution for a number of interrelated unmet needs, according to a description at the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Although not limited to patients with gastrointestinal diseases, the applications of this platform are illustrative of the value to both patients and the physicians who prescribe diet as part of the management of chronic conditions, according to Jonah Cohen, MD, who is a founder of the digital therapeutics company Nutrimedy, which created the platform for virtual nutritional counseling.

“As gastroenterologists, we are experts in the function of the gastrointestinal tract but not necessarily in nutrition. Most physicians get very little training in this area,” said Dr. Cohen, who is a gastroenterologist affiliated with Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Even for those physicians who have expertise and an interest in nutrition, dietary counseling requires a substantial investment of time and continuity to affect behavior change. Helping patients develop an effective diet and implementation strategy to which they are willing to adhere is not a simple task. It requires recognizing and managing nuanced preferences and tastes. For most patients, frequent engagement with an expert is essential to remain on track.

“Nutrimedy’s proprietary matching system connects patients to their ideal dietitian who will help establish a specific nutrition plan for their medical conditions through video visits, unlimited messaging, photo food logs, recipes, and biometric trackers,” Dr. Cohen explained. “The key to the success of these relationships is based on the ease of clinical touch points we’re able to achieve through telenutrition when patients can ask questions, make modifications, and get positive feedback on their own time.”

Launched in 2016, Nutrimedy now has over 1,000 dietitians on its roster and a HIPAA-compliant device-agnostic platform to deliver best-in-class nutritional care remotely.

“The breadth of expertise of our providers enables us to provide medical nutrition therapy across a range of conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), celiac disease, acid reflux, fatty liver disease, and gastroparesis to name just several, for patients anytime, anywhere,” according to Dr. Cohen.

In many places within the United States, there are few expert nutritionists with the specific expertise needed to manage a disease condition like IBS through low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols) diet, and thus appointments are often hard to get for these providers, according to Dr. Cohen. Moreover, he explained that office visits are not just inconvenient but can be an obstacle to a successfully implemented dietary plan.

Other challenges may include cultural or language barriers. Dr. Cohen gave the example of Sophia, a busy mother of two with IBS, who is vegetarian, eats predominantly Spanish cuisine, lives in rural Massachusetts, and speaks Spanish. She prefers not to take medications and hopes to better manage her condition with a low FODMAP diet.

Nutrimedy draws on its roster of registered dietitians to find a good match for patients like Sophia. “Our vision is that everyone deserves to have an expert literally in their back pocket to help them on their journey to better health through food as medicine,” Dr. Cohen explained. He called Nutrimedy “a turn-key solution for GI practices who want to improve medical nutrition therapy for their patients.”

According to Dr. Cohen, Nutrimedy has already proven effective for its core mission of making effective nutritional counseling easier to obtain, and is now working to extend its reach. For example, Dr. Cohen said that the company has actively engaged with employers to provide corporate wellness solutions, and it is partnering with pharmaceutical and other life sciences companies who offer therapies relevant to nutritional health where Nutrimedy has potential to serve as a digital therapeutic companion.

“In almost every chronic condition, diet plays an important role in disease prevention or management,” said Dr. Cohen who believes his company is participating in the effort to reduce the burden of chronic disease related to poor diet. “I feel that in 2019 we’re at a tipping point where health care entities are finally recognizing that we can transform wellness in America through healthier eating.” He believes that Nutrimedy is poised “to play a part in this revolution.

SAN FRANCISCO – Patients are being better prepared for medical procedures, such as screening colonoscopy, through a new service based on smartphone texts that remind patients of steps to take prior to their procedure, according to a description at the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

“The reminders mean fewer no shows and fewer cancellations, but in the case of colonoscopy we are also seeing better rates of adequate bowel prep and lower rates of aborted procedures,” reported Andy Pfau, chief operating officer, RxHealth, New York.

The texts are based on a patient-care pathway integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR) system. In the case of colonoscopy, once a physician creates an appointment in the EMR for a colonoscopy and selects the bowel prep, the system takes over, automatically obtaining access to the patient’s cell phone number in order to send reminder texts at intervals relevant to their appointment.

“The texts provide links to additional information so that patients are not only reminded to begin their bowel prep but can access instructions and supportive educational material,” Mr. Pfau explained.

“The messaging is not just limited to reminders. We can provide driving and parking instructions. We have also partnered with ride sharing companies to make it easier for patients to get to the facility. We can adjust the platform in a variety of ways to help patients show up prepared for the procedure,” he added.

The commercial tool, known as RxUniverse, was a spin off of a program developed at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The problem of no shows and the importance of bowel prep makes this service particularly attractive in colonoscopy, according to Mr. Pfau, who cited data associating this tool with a 34% improvement in bowel preps and a more than 90% rate of patient satisfaction.

The same approach can and already is being employed in other procedures in GI, such as guiding patients scheduled for an upper endoscopy.

“We see a large role for this tool in comprehensive care plans because it is versatile and could be applied to a variety of care pathways, including forms of telemedicine, where timely communication through smartphone messaging could help patients adhere to goals of treatment,” Mr. Pfau said.

The tool can already be integrated with four EMR systems, including EPIC, but Mr. Pfau said the tool will ultimately be EMR agonistic according to current plans. While the company spun out of Mount Sinai in late 2016, RxHealth began marketing the RxUniverse prescription platform in earnest in 2018.

“In the last eight or so months, growth has been exponential,” Mr. Pfau said. In addition to growth in the U.S., the program is now being marketed overseas. He named several large medical systems that have already adopted the technology, including the Arizona Centers for Digestive Health and Yale New Haven Health. The American Gastroenterological Association, recognizing the value of this innovation for GI, has also partnered with RxHealth to help bring this product to its members.

As the automated pathway is integrated into existing EMR systems, the per-patient cost of the pathway is relatively low, according to Mr. Pfau. In situations in which the service increases the proportion of procedures completed successfully, it is reasonable to expect a highly favorable return on investment.

“There is a lot of interest in the potential of mobile devices to be employed in various ways to communicate and inform patients. This is part of that, and we think it is just the beginning. We are looking at a number of ways in which we can expand the platform and make it even more valuable,” Mr. Pfau said.

SAN FRANCISCO – Patients are being better prepared for medical procedures, such as screening colonoscopy, through a new service based on smartphone texts that remind patients of steps to take prior to their procedure, according to a description at the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

“The reminders mean fewer no shows and fewer cancellations, but in the case of colonoscopy we are also seeing better rates of adequate bowel prep and lower rates of aborted procedures,” reported Andy Pfau, chief operating officer, RxHealth, New York.

The texts are based on a patient-care pathway integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR) system. In the case of colonoscopy, once a physician creates an appointment in the EMR for a colonoscopy and selects the bowel prep, the system takes over, automatically obtaining access to the patient’s cell phone number in order to send reminder texts at intervals relevant to their appointment.

“The texts provide links to additional information so that patients are not only reminded to begin their bowel prep but can access instructions and supportive educational material,” Mr. Pfau explained.

“The messaging is not just limited to reminders. We can provide driving and parking instructions. We have also partnered with ride sharing companies to make it easier for patients to get to the facility. We can adjust the platform in a variety of ways to help patients show up prepared for the procedure,” he added.

The commercial tool, known as RxUniverse, was a spin off of a program developed at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The problem of no shows and the importance of bowel prep makes this service particularly attractive in colonoscopy, according to Mr. Pfau, who cited data associating this tool with a 34% improvement in bowel preps and a more than 90% rate of patient satisfaction.

The same approach can and already is being employed in other procedures in GI, such as guiding patients scheduled for an upper endoscopy.

“We see a large role for this tool in comprehensive care plans because it is versatile and could be applied to a variety of care pathways, including forms of telemedicine, where timely communication through smartphone messaging could help patients adhere to goals of treatment,” Mr. Pfau said.

The tool can already be integrated with four EMR systems, including EPIC, but Mr. Pfau said the tool will ultimately be EMR agonistic according to current plans. While the company spun out of Mount Sinai in late 2016, RxHealth began marketing the RxUniverse prescription platform in earnest in 2018.

“In the last eight or so months, growth has been exponential,” Mr. Pfau said. In addition to growth in the U.S., the program is now being marketed overseas. He named several large medical systems that have already adopted the technology, including the Arizona Centers for Digestive Health and Yale New Haven Health. The American Gastroenterological Association, recognizing the value of this innovation for GI, has also partnered with RxHealth to help bring this product to its members.

As the automated pathway is integrated into existing EMR systems, the per-patient cost of the pathway is relatively low, according to Mr. Pfau. In situations in which the service increases the proportion of procedures completed successfully, it is reasonable to expect a highly favorable return on investment.

“There is a lot of interest in the potential of mobile devices to be employed in various ways to communicate and inform patients. This is part of that, and we think it is just the beginning. We are looking at a number of ways in which we can expand the platform and make it even more valuable,” Mr. Pfau said.

SAN FRANCISCO – Patients are being better prepared for medical procedures, such as screening colonoscopy, through a new service based on smartphone texts that remind patients of steps to take prior to their procedure, according to a description at the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

“The reminders mean fewer no shows and fewer cancellations, but in the case of colonoscopy we are also seeing better rates of adequate bowel prep and lower rates of aborted procedures,” reported Andy Pfau, chief operating officer, RxHealth, New York.

The texts are based on a patient-care pathway integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR) system. In the case of colonoscopy, once a physician creates an appointment in the EMR for a colonoscopy and selects the bowel prep, the system takes over, automatically obtaining access to the patient’s cell phone number in order to send reminder texts at intervals relevant to their appointment.

“The texts provide links to additional information so that patients are not only reminded to begin their bowel prep but can access instructions and supportive educational material,” Mr. Pfau explained.

“The messaging is not just limited to reminders. We can provide driving and parking instructions. We have also partnered with ride sharing companies to make it easier for patients to get to the facility. We can adjust the platform in a variety of ways to help patients show up prepared for the procedure,” he added.

The commercial tool, known as RxUniverse, was a spin off of a program developed at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The problem of no shows and the importance of bowel prep makes this service particularly attractive in colonoscopy, according to Mr. Pfau, who cited data associating this tool with a 34% improvement in bowel preps and a more than 90% rate of patient satisfaction.

The same approach can and already is being employed in other procedures in GI, such as guiding patients scheduled for an upper endoscopy.

“We see a large role for this tool in comprehensive care plans because it is versatile and could be applied to a variety of care pathways, including forms of telemedicine, where timely communication through smartphone messaging could help patients adhere to goals of treatment,” Mr. Pfau said.

The tool can already be integrated with four EMR systems, including EPIC, but Mr. Pfau said the tool will ultimately be EMR agonistic according to current plans. While the company spun out of Mount Sinai in late 2016, RxHealth began marketing the RxUniverse prescription platform in earnest in 2018.

“In the last eight or so months, growth has been exponential,” Mr. Pfau said. In addition to growth in the U.S., the program is now being marketed overseas. He named several large medical systems that have already adopted the technology, including the Arizona Centers for Digestive Health and Yale New Haven Health. The American Gastroenterological Association, recognizing the value of this innovation for GI, has also partnered with RxHealth to help bring this product to its members.

As the automated pathway is integrated into existing EMR systems, the per-patient cost of the pathway is relatively low, according to Mr. Pfau. In situations in which the service increases the proportion of procedures completed successfully, it is reasonable to expect a highly favorable return on investment.

“There is a lot of interest in the potential of mobile devices to be employed in various ways to communicate and inform patients. This is part of that, and we think it is just the beginning. We are looking at a number of ways in which we can expand the platform and make it even more valuable,” Mr. Pfau said.

SAN FRANCISCO – The seasonality of lupus flares is likely the result of variations in atmospheric and climatic conditions, according to investigators from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The work helps solve a longstanding mystery in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): why symptoms seem to come and go with the seasons.
 

Johns Hopkins University research previously has shown that renal flares are more common in the winter; double-stranded DNA antibodies more common in late fall; and rashes more likely in late spring.

However, “the exact reasons of why the seasonality was there remained a big question,” said lead investigator George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology and the codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

To get a handle on the matter, Dr. Stojan and his team reviewed 1,628 patients treated at the university during 1999-2017. Using Environmental Protection Agency data, they examined atmospheric conditions within 350 km of Baltimore in the 10 days leading up to lupus visits for flares; the researchers adjusted for age, sex, income, ethnicity, rural versus urban residence, and how close patients lived to highways and airports.

“We [found] specific, strong associations between atmospheric variables and fine particulate matter concentrations ... and organ-specific lupus flares,” Dr. Stojan said. He explained why that matters in a video interview at an international congress on SLE.

In short, rash was directly associated with concentrations of ozone and inhalable, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM 2.5). Joint flares were associated with PM 2.5, ozone, resultant wind, and humidity.

Renal flares were inversely associated with temperature, and directly associated with wind and humidity. Pulmonary flares and serositis were associated with PM 2.5, and both hematologic and neurologic flares with wind and temperature.

The analysis was based on a per-unit basis. For example, each mcg/m³ increase in PM 2.5 increased the odds of a pulmonary flare about 4% (odds ratio, 1.042, P = .026). The other findings were mostly of smaller magnitude, but still statistically significant.

The National Institutes of Health funded the research. Dr. Stojan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. LUPUS 2019, Abstract M31.

SAN FRANCISCO – The seasonality of lupus flares is likely the result of variations in atmospheric and climatic conditions, according to investigators from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The work helps solve a longstanding mystery in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): why symptoms seem to come and go with the seasons.
 

Johns Hopkins University research previously has shown that renal flares are more common in the winter; double-stranded DNA antibodies more common in late fall; and rashes more likely in late spring.

However, “the exact reasons of why the seasonality was there remained a big question,” said lead investigator George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology and the codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

To get a handle on the matter, Dr. Stojan and his team reviewed 1,628 patients treated at the university during 1999-2017. Using Environmental Protection Agency data, they examined atmospheric conditions within 350 km of Baltimore in the 10 days leading up to lupus visits for flares; the researchers adjusted for age, sex, income, ethnicity, rural versus urban residence, and how close patients lived to highways and airports.

“We [found] specific, strong associations between atmospheric variables and fine particulate matter concentrations ... and organ-specific lupus flares,” Dr. Stojan said. He explained why that matters in a video interview at an international congress on SLE.

In short, rash was directly associated with concentrations of ozone and inhalable, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM 2.5). Joint flares were associated with PM 2.5, ozone, resultant wind, and humidity.

Renal flares were inversely associated with temperature, and directly associated with wind and humidity. Pulmonary flares and serositis were associated with PM 2.5, and both hematologic and neurologic flares with wind and temperature.

The analysis was based on a per-unit basis. For example, each mcg/m³ increase in PM 2.5 increased the odds of a pulmonary flare about 4% (odds ratio, 1.042, P = .026). The other findings were mostly of smaller magnitude, but still statistically significant.

The National Institutes of Health funded the research. Dr. Stojan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. LUPUS 2019, Abstract M31.

SAN FRANCISCO – The seasonality of lupus flares is likely the result of variations in atmospheric and climatic conditions, according to investigators from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The work helps solve a longstanding mystery in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): why symptoms seem to come and go with the seasons.
 

Johns Hopkins University research previously has shown that renal flares are more common in the winter; double-stranded DNA antibodies more common in late fall; and rashes more likely in late spring.

However, “the exact reasons of why the seasonality was there remained a big question,” said lead investigator George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology and the codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

To get a handle on the matter, Dr. Stojan and his team reviewed 1,628 patients treated at the university during 1999-2017. Using Environmental Protection Agency data, they examined atmospheric conditions within 350 km of Baltimore in the 10 days leading up to lupus visits for flares; the researchers adjusted for age, sex, income, ethnicity, rural versus urban residence, and how close patients lived to highways and airports.

“We [found] specific, strong associations between atmospheric variables and fine particulate matter concentrations ... and organ-specific lupus flares,” Dr. Stojan said. He explained why that matters in a video interview at an international congress on SLE.

In short, rash was directly associated with concentrations of ozone and inhalable, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM 2.5). Joint flares were associated with PM 2.5, ozone, resultant wind, and humidity.

Renal flares were inversely associated with temperature, and directly associated with wind and humidity. Pulmonary flares and serositis were associated with PM 2.5, and both hematologic and neurologic flares with wind and temperature.

The analysis was based on a per-unit basis. For example, each mcg/m³ increase in PM 2.5 increased the odds of a pulmonary flare about 4% (odds ratio, 1.042, P = .026). The other findings were mostly of smaller magnitude, but still statistically significant.

The National Institutes of Health funded the research. Dr. Stojan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. LUPUS 2019, Abstract M31.

It happens to all of us: You log onto the Internet one day and discover a scathing review from a disgruntled patient or family member, usually complaining about something totally irrelevant to the excellent care they received.

Urupong/Getty Images

Your first impulse may be to post a response, but wait – it turns out that “protected health information” is more liberally defined than most of us think. If you include any information that could be used to identify the patient, you can be considered in violation of HIPAA. This is true even if the patient has already disclosed information, because doing so does not nullify their HIPAA rights; and HIPAA provides no exceptions for responses. Even acknowledging that the reviewer was in fact your patient could, in some cases, be considered a violation.

In 2013, a California hospital paid $275,000 to settle claims that it violated HIPAA when it disclosed a patient’s health information in response to a negative review. And the Department of Health & Human Services, which enforces HIPAA, has sent warning letters to a variety of physicians and dentists who divulged patient information while responding to reviews. (An HHS spokesperson couldn’t tell me how many such warnings have been issued, because they “don’t track complaints that way.”)

All of that said, there are legal and ethical ways to deal with negative reviews. Here are three such options:

• Ignore them. This is your best choice 90% of the time. Most negative reviews have minimal impact and simply do not deserve a response, and responding may simply pour fuel on the fire. Besides, an occasional negative review actually lends credibility to a reviewing site, and to the positive reviews posted on that site. Polls show that readers are suspicious of sites that contain only rave reviews. They assume such reviews have been “whitewashed” – or just fabricated. If your total number of reviews on that site is too small – for example, there are only 4, and 2 are bad – you have what I call a denominator problem. The solution in those cases is to increase the denominator – that is, increase the total number of reviews. The more you can obtain, the less impact the complaints will have, since you know the overwhelming majority of your patients are happy with your care and will post a positive review if asked. Solicit them on your website, on social media, in your e-mail reminders, or simply leave a stack of requests at your check-out desk and tell your receptionist to hand them out. To be clear, you must encourage all reviews, good or bad, not just favorable ones; if you specify that all reviews must be favorable, you are “filtering,” which can be perceived as false or deceptive advertising.
• Respond generically. In those rare cases where you feel you must respond, do so without acknowledging that the individual was a patient, or disclosing any information that may be linked to the patient. For example, you can say that you provide excellent and appropriate care, or describe your general policies, or direct readers to positive reviews without referencing any individual cases. You might point out that HIPAA prevents you from disclosing information in response. Be polite, professional, and sensitive to the patient’s position. Readers tend to respect and sympathize with a doctor who responds in a professional, respectful manner and does not trash the complainant in retaliation.
• Take the discussion offline. Sometimes the person posting the review is just frustrated and wants to be heard. In those cases, consider contacting the patient and offering to discuss their concerns privately. In select situations, this has been very effective for me; in one case, the patient not only removed the negative post, but also became a loyal supporter. If you cannot resolve your differences, try to get the patient’s written permission to post a response to their review. If they refuse, you can at least explain that on the site, thereby capturing the moral high ground.

If the review contains false or defamatory content, that’s a different situation entirely, and I will address that in next month’s column.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

It happens to all of us: You log onto the Internet one day and discover a scathing review from a disgruntled patient or family member, usually complaining about something totally irrelevant to the excellent care they received.

Urupong/Getty Images

Your first impulse may be to post a response, but wait – it turns out that “protected health information” is more liberally defined than most of us think. If you include any information that could be used to identify the patient, you can be considered in violation of HIPAA. This is true even if the patient has already disclosed information, because doing so does not nullify their HIPAA rights; and HIPAA provides no exceptions for responses. Even acknowledging that the reviewer was in fact your patient could, in some cases, be considered a violation.

In 2013, a California hospital paid $275,000 to settle claims that it violated HIPAA when it disclosed a patient’s health information in response to a negative review. And the Department of Health & Human Services, which enforces HIPAA, has sent warning letters to a variety of physicians and dentists who divulged patient information while responding to reviews. (An HHS spokesperson couldn’t tell me how many such warnings have been issued, because they “don’t track complaints that way.”)

All of that said, there are legal and ethical ways to deal with negative reviews. Here are three such options:

• Ignore them. This is your best choice 90% of the time. Most negative reviews have minimal impact and simply do not deserve a response, and responding may simply pour fuel on the fire. Besides, an occasional negative review actually lends credibility to a reviewing site, and to the positive reviews posted on that site. Polls show that readers are suspicious of sites that contain only rave reviews. They assume such reviews have been “whitewashed” – or just fabricated. If your total number of reviews on that site is too small – for example, there are only 4, and 2 are bad – you have what I call a denominator problem. The solution in those cases is to increase the denominator – that is, increase the total number of reviews. The more you can obtain, the less impact the complaints will have, since you know the overwhelming majority of your patients are happy with your care and will post a positive review if asked. Solicit them on your website, on social media, in your e-mail reminders, or simply leave a stack of requests at your check-out desk and tell your receptionist to hand them out. To be clear, you must encourage all reviews, good or bad, not just favorable ones; if you specify that all reviews must be favorable, you are “filtering,” which can be perceived as false or deceptive advertising.
• Respond generically. In those rare cases where you feel you must respond, do so without acknowledging that the individual was a patient, or disclosing any information that may be linked to the patient. For example, you can say that you provide excellent and appropriate care, or describe your general policies, or direct readers to positive reviews without referencing any individual cases. You might point out that HIPAA prevents you from disclosing information in response. Be polite, professional, and sensitive to the patient’s position. Readers tend to respect and sympathize with a doctor who responds in a professional, respectful manner and does not trash the complainant in retaliation.
• Take the discussion offline. Sometimes the person posting the review is just frustrated and wants to be heard. In those cases, consider contacting the patient and offering to discuss their concerns privately. In select situations, this has been very effective for me; in one case, the patient not only removed the negative post, but also became a loyal supporter. If you cannot resolve your differences, try to get the patient’s written permission to post a response to their review. If they refuse, you can at least explain that on the site, thereby capturing the moral high ground.

If the review contains false or defamatory content, that’s a different situation entirely, and I will address that in next month’s column.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

It happens to all of us: You log onto the Internet one day and discover a scathing review from a disgruntled patient or family member, usually complaining about something totally irrelevant to the excellent care they received.

Urupong/Getty Images

Your first impulse may be to post a response, but wait – it turns out that “protected health information” is more liberally defined than most of us think. If you include any information that could be used to identify the patient, you can be considered in violation of HIPAA. This is true even if the patient has already disclosed information, because doing so does not nullify their HIPAA rights; and HIPAA provides no exceptions for responses. Even acknowledging that the reviewer was in fact your patient could, in some cases, be considered a violation.

In 2013, a California hospital paid $275,000 to settle claims that it violated HIPAA when it disclosed a patient’s health information in response to a negative review. And the Department of Health & Human Services, which enforces HIPAA, has sent warning letters to a variety of physicians and dentists who divulged patient information while responding to reviews. (An HHS spokesperson couldn’t tell me how many such warnings have been issued, because they “don’t track complaints that way.”)

All of that said, there are legal and ethical ways to deal with negative reviews. Here are three such options:

• Ignore them. This is your best choice 90% of the time. Most negative reviews have minimal impact and simply do not deserve a response, and responding may simply pour fuel on the fire. Besides, an occasional negative review actually lends credibility to a reviewing site, and to the positive reviews posted on that site. Polls show that readers are suspicious of sites that contain only rave reviews. They assume such reviews have been “whitewashed” – or just fabricated. If your total number of reviews on that site is too small – for example, there are only 4, and 2 are bad – you have what I call a denominator problem. The solution in those cases is to increase the denominator – that is, increase the total number of reviews. The more you can obtain, the less impact the complaints will have, since you know the overwhelming majority of your patients are happy with your care and will post a positive review if asked. Solicit them on your website, on social media, in your e-mail reminders, or simply leave a stack of requests at your check-out desk and tell your receptionist to hand them out. To be clear, you must encourage all reviews, good or bad, not just favorable ones; if you specify that all reviews must be favorable, you are “filtering,” which can be perceived as false or deceptive advertising.
• Respond generically. In those rare cases where you feel you must respond, do so without acknowledging that the individual was a patient, or disclosing any information that may be linked to the patient. For example, you can say that you provide excellent and appropriate care, or describe your general policies, or direct readers to positive reviews without referencing any individual cases. You might point out that HIPAA prevents you from disclosing information in response. Be polite, professional, and sensitive to the patient’s position. Readers tend to respect and sympathize with a doctor who responds in a professional, respectful manner and does not trash the complainant in retaliation.
• Take the discussion offline. Sometimes the person posting the review is just frustrated and wants to be heard. In those cases, consider contacting the patient and offering to discuss their concerns privately. In select situations, this has been very effective for me; in one case, the patient not only removed the negative post, but also became a loyal supporter. If you cannot resolve your differences, try to get the patient’s written permission to post a response to their review. If they refuse, you can at least explain that on the site, thereby capturing the moral high ground.

If the review contains false or defamatory content, that’s a different situation entirely, and I will address that in next month’s column.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

SAN FRANCISCO – It is now reasonable to conclude that many of the endoscopic devices and procedures developed for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) offer good short-term efficacy, leaving only the task to understand how these fit with competing options to improve quality of life long term, according to a state-of-the-art summary at the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

“The quality of the data for many of these devices has improved substantially, putting us in a much better place than we were in 4 or 5 years ago in considering their role,” reported Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Over the past 15 years, an array of endoscopic approaches to treatment of GERD has received FDA approval. Examples of the very different techniques include plication devices that can suture, staple, or otherwise prevent reflux at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and interventions aimed at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), where placement of magnets or radiofrequency ablation has been employed to achieve a tighter defense against transient reflux episodes.

Despite FDA approval, the supportive evidence for many of these endoscopic interventions was criticized. In some cases, the number of patients evaluated in pivotal studies was considered too small. In others, there were objections to methodology, particularly to the choice of control arm. In all cases, there has been concern that follow-up was insufficient to confirm persistent benefit. Many of these criticisms are dissipating under the weight of more data.

“For most of the currently available, FDA-approved devices, there is now a substantial body of at least short-term data showing efficacy and safety,” reported Dr. Vaezi, who is a coauthor of an expert review now being prepared for publication. “This includes evidence that they improve quality of life, reduce the need for acid-suppressing therapy, and reduce esophageal acid exposure.”

Additional follow-up represents the final hurdle for understanding how these endoscopic interventions fit for extended symptom control. The long-term efficacy of the current standards of chronic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and surgical fundoplication has been established. Among these options, the choice is indefinite pharmacologic therapy or a surgical procedure. Endoscopic devices add additional options, but not with clear conclusions to be drawn on persistence of benefit.

Patient selection is an important consideration. Dr. Vaezi outlined three groups of patients: Patients who have responded to once-daily PPIs and are doing well, but would prefer not to take them indefinitely; PPI non-responders; and patients with improved heartburn but no improvement in regurgitation. Responders are reasonable candidates for endoscopic interventions, but non-responders are not, according to Dr. Vaezi. “You’re exposing the patient to the risk without the benefit, because they don’t have reflux. It’s something else,” he said.

Patients with improved heartburn but no change in regurgitation may be a candidate for endoscopic devices, as long as the clinician rules out non-reflux causes such as achalasia or gastroparesis.

“In patients being considered for alternative nonmedical therapy, it is essential to show that their symptoms are acid related. Those who do not respond to a PPI have traditionally not been good surgical candidates because the lack of a response suggests that acid reflux is not the source of their complaints. For patients being considered for an endoscopic treatment, we must apply the same time proven strategy. At this point, what is uncertain about the device therapies is the long-term durability for reflux control,” Dr. Vaezi said.

PPIs are effective for acid control, so the reason to consider an invasive treatment strategy is to avoid chronic PPI treatment. This is an increasingly attractive goal for many patients as a result of well-publicized case-control studies associating PPI use with a variety of increased risks, such as osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease, and gastrointestinal infections, but many gastroenterologists have been slow to recommend endoscopic interventions due to enduring concerns about safety and efficacy.

From his survey of the evidence, Dr. Vaezi characterized himself as “cautiously optimistic” that many of the endoscopic interventions will be included among standard options for durable GERD treatment.

SAN FRANCISCO – It is now reasonable to conclude that many of the endoscopic devices and procedures developed for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) offer good short-term efficacy, leaving only the task to understand how these fit with competing options to improve quality of life long term, according to a state-of-the-art summary at the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

“The quality of the data for many of these devices has improved substantially, putting us in a much better place than we were in 4 or 5 years ago in considering their role,” reported Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Over the past 15 years, an array of endoscopic approaches to treatment of GERD has received FDA approval. Examples of the very different techniques include plication devices that can suture, staple, or otherwise prevent reflux at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and interventions aimed at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), where placement of magnets or radiofrequency ablation has been employed to achieve a tighter defense against transient reflux episodes.

Despite FDA approval, the supportive evidence for many of these endoscopic interventions was criticized. In some cases, the number of patients evaluated in pivotal studies was considered too small. In others, there were objections to methodology, particularly to the choice of control arm. In all cases, there has been concern that follow-up was insufficient to confirm persistent benefit. Many of these criticisms are dissipating under the weight of more data.

“For most of the currently available, FDA-approved devices, there is now a substantial body of at least short-term data showing efficacy and safety,” reported Dr. Vaezi, who is a coauthor of an expert review now being prepared for publication. “This includes evidence that they improve quality of life, reduce the need for acid-suppressing therapy, and reduce esophageal acid exposure.”

Additional follow-up represents the final hurdle for understanding how these endoscopic interventions fit for extended symptom control. The long-term efficacy of the current standards of chronic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and surgical fundoplication has been established. Among these options, the choice is indefinite pharmacologic therapy or a surgical procedure. Endoscopic devices add additional options, but not with clear conclusions to be drawn on persistence of benefit.

Patient selection is an important consideration. Dr. Vaezi outlined three groups of patients: Patients who have responded to once-daily PPIs and are doing well, but would prefer not to take them indefinitely; PPI non-responders; and patients with improved heartburn but no improvement in regurgitation. Responders are reasonable candidates for endoscopic interventions, but non-responders are not, according to Dr. Vaezi. “You’re exposing the patient to the risk without the benefit, because they don’t have reflux. It’s something else,” he said.

Patients with improved heartburn but no change in regurgitation may be a candidate for endoscopic devices, as long as the clinician rules out non-reflux causes such as achalasia or gastroparesis.

“In patients being considered for alternative nonmedical therapy, it is essential to show that their symptoms are acid related. Those who do not respond to a PPI have traditionally not been good surgical candidates because the lack of a response suggests that acid reflux is not the source of their complaints. For patients being considered for an endoscopic treatment, we must apply the same time proven strategy. At this point, what is uncertain about the device therapies is the long-term durability for reflux control,” Dr. Vaezi said.

PPIs are effective for acid control, so the reason to consider an invasive treatment strategy is to avoid chronic PPI treatment. This is an increasingly attractive goal for many patients as a result of well-publicized case-control studies associating PPI use with a variety of increased risks, such as osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease, and gastrointestinal infections, but many gastroenterologists have been slow to recommend endoscopic interventions due to enduring concerns about safety and efficacy.

From his survey of the evidence, Dr. Vaezi characterized himself as “cautiously optimistic” that many of the endoscopic interventions will be included among standard options for durable GERD treatment.

SAN FRANCISCO – It is now reasonable to conclude that many of the endoscopic devices and procedures developed for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) offer good short-term efficacy, leaving only the task to understand how these fit with competing options to improve quality of life long term, according to a state-of-the-art summary at the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

“The quality of the data for many of these devices has improved substantially, putting us in a much better place than we were in 4 or 5 years ago in considering their role,” reported Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Over the past 15 years, an array of endoscopic approaches to treatment of GERD has received FDA approval. Examples of the very different techniques include plication devices that can suture, staple, or otherwise prevent reflux at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and interventions aimed at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), where placement of magnets or radiofrequency ablation has been employed to achieve a tighter defense against transient reflux episodes.

Despite FDA approval, the supportive evidence for many of these endoscopic interventions was criticized. In some cases, the number of patients evaluated in pivotal studies was considered too small. In others, there were objections to methodology, particularly to the choice of control arm. In all cases, there has been concern that follow-up was insufficient to confirm persistent benefit. Many of these criticisms are dissipating under the weight of more data.

“For most of the currently available, FDA-approved devices, there is now a substantial body of at least short-term data showing efficacy and safety,” reported Dr. Vaezi, who is a coauthor of an expert review now being prepared for publication. “This includes evidence that they improve quality of life, reduce the need for acid-suppressing therapy, and reduce esophageal acid exposure.”

Additional follow-up represents the final hurdle for understanding how these endoscopic interventions fit for extended symptom control. The long-term efficacy of the current standards of chronic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and surgical fundoplication has been established. Among these options, the choice is indefinite pharmacologic therapy or a surgical procedure. Endoscopic devices add additional options, but not with clear conclusions to be drawn on persistence of benefit.

Patient selection is an important consideration. Dr. Vaezi outlined three groups of patients: Patients who have responded to once-daily PPIs and are doing well, but would prefer not to take them indefinitely; PPI non-responders; and patients with improved heartburn but no improvement in regurgitation. Responders are reasonable candidates for endoscopic interventions, but non-responders are not, according to Dr. Vaezi. “You’re exposing the patient to the risk without the benefit, because they don’t have reflux. It’s something else,” he said.

Patients with improved heartburn but no change in regurgitation may be a candidate for endoscopic devices, as long as the clinician rules out non-reflux causes such as achalasia or gastroparesis.

“In patients being considered for alternative nonmedical therapy, it is essential to show that their symptoms are acid related. Those who do not respond to a PPI have traditionally not been good surgical candidates because the lack of a response suggests that acid reflux is not the source of their complaints. For patients being considered for an endoscopic treatment, we must apply the same time proven strategy. At this point, what is uncertain about the device therapies is the long-term durability for reflux control,” Dr. Vaezi said.

PPIs are effective for acid control, so the reason to consider an invasive treatment strategy is to avoid chronic PPI treatment. This is an increasingly attractive goal for many patients as a result of well-publicized case-control studies associating PPI use with a variety of increased risks, such as osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease, and gastrointestinal infections, but many gastroenterologists have been slow to recommend endoscopic interventions due to enduring concerns about safety and efficacy.

From his survey of the evidence, Dr. Vaezi characterized himself as “cautiously optimistic” that many of the endoscopic interventions will be included among standard options for durable GERD treatment.

The average cost of a brand-name drug was 18.6 times higher than its generic equivalent in 2017, and the size of that gap has more than tripled since 2013, according to a report from the AARP Public Policy Institute.

In 2017, the average retail cost of 260 generic drugs widely used by older adults for chronic conditions was $365 for a year of therapy, compared with $6,798 for brand-name drugs. In 2013, that same year of therapy with an average brand-name drug ($4,308) was only 5.7 times more expensive than the generic ($751), the AARP wrote in the report, produced in collaboration with the PRIME Institute at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“Generics account for nearly 9 out of every 10 prescriptions filled in the U.S. but represent less than a quarter of the country’s drug spending. These results highlight the importance of eliminating anticompetitive behavior by brand-name drug companies so that we get more lower-priced generic drugs on the market,” Debra Whitman, executive vice president and chief public policy officer at AARP, said in a written statement.

The average retail cost of a larger group of 390 generic drugs used by older adults fell by 9.3% from 2016 to 2017, compared with an increase of 8.4% for a group of 267 brand-name prescription drugs. Over that same time, the general inflation rate rose by 2.1%, the AARP noted.

The AARP’s annual Rx Price Watch Report is based on data from the Truven Health MarketScan research databases.

[email protected]

The average cost of a brand-name drug was 18.6 times higher than its generic equivalent in 2017, and the size of that gap has more than tripled since 2013, according to a report from the AARP Public Policy Institute.

In 2017, the average retail cost of 260 generic drugs widely used by older adults for chronic conditions was $365 for a year of therapy, compared with $6,798 for brand-name drugs. In 2013, that same year of therapy with an average brand-name drug ($4,308) was only 5.7 times more expensive than the generic ($751), the AARP wrote in the report, produced in collaboration with the PRIME Institute at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“Generics account for nearly 9 out of every 10 prescriptions filled in the U.S. but represent less than a quarter of the country’s drug spending. These results highlight the importance of eliminating anticompetitive behavior by brand-name drug companies so that we get more lower-priced generic drugs on the market,” Debra Whitman, executive vice president and chief public policy officer at AARP, said in a written statement.

The average retail cost of a larger group of 390 generic drugs used by older adults fell by 9.3% from 2016 to 2017, compared with an increase of 8.4% for a group of 267 brand-name prescription drugs. Over that same time, the general inflation rate rose by 2.1%, the AARP noted.

The AARP’s annual Rx Price Watch Report is based on data from the Truven Health MarketScan research databases.

[email protected]

The average cost of a brand-name drug was 18.6 times higher than its generic equivalent in 2017, and the size of that gap has more than tripled since 2013, according to a report from the AARP Public Policy Institute.

In 2017, the average retail cost of 260 generic drugs widely used by older adults for chronic conditions was $365 for a year of therapy, compared with $6,798 for brand-name drugs. In 2013, that same year of therapy with an average brand-name drug ($4,308) was only 5.7 times more expensive than the generic ($751), the AARP wrote in the report, produced in collaboration with the PRIME Institute at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“Generics account for nearly 9 out of every 10 prescriptions filled in the U.S. but represent less than a quarter of the country’s drug spending. These results highlight the importance of eliminating anticompetitive behavior by brand-name drug companies so that we get more lower-priced generic drugs on the market,” Debra Whitman, executive vice president and chief public policy officer at AARP, said in a written statement.

The average retail cost of a larger group of 390 generic drugs used by older adults fell by 9.3% from 2016 to 2017, compared with an increase of 8.4% for a group of 267 brand-name prescription drugs. Over that same time, the general inflation rate rose by 2.1%, the AARP noted.

The AARP’s annual Rx Price Watch Report is based on data from the Truven Health MarketScan research databases.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – More than half of physicians surveyed work in a practice that has implemented at least one technology required to engage in telehealth, according to the recently announced results of a questionnaire by the American College of Physicians.

The survey participants included 233 members of the ACP, who provided their responses between October 2018 and January 2019. ACP President Ana Maria Lopez, MD, as well as Tabassum Salam, MD, vice president for medical education, announced the survey’s results at a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Dr. Lopez and Dr. Salam highlighted some of the findings and expressed their enthusiasm about the recent increases in the use of telemedicine in a video interview. They also explained how telehealth benefits patients and the barriers to more widespread use of telemedicine.

Dr. Lopez and Dr. Salam did not disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – More than half of physicians surveyed work in a practice that has implemented at least one technology required to engage in telehealth, according to the recently announced results of a questionnaire by the American College of Physicians.

The survey participants included 233 members of the ACP, who provided their responses between October 2018 and January 2019. ACP President Ana Maria Lopez, MD, as well as Tabassum Salam, MD, vice president for medical education, announced the survey’s results at a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Dr. Lopez and Dr. Salam highlighted some of the findings and expressed their enthusiasm about the recent increases in the use of telemedicine in a video interview. They also explained how telehealth benefits patients and the barriers to more widespread use of telemedicine.

Dr. Lopez and Dr. Salam did not disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – More than half of physicians surveyed work in a practice that has implemented at least one technology required to engage in telehealth, according to the recently announced results of a questionnaire by the American College of Physicians.

The survey participants included 233 members of the ACP, who provided their responses between October 2018 and January 2019. ACP President Ana Maria Lopez, MD, as well as Tabassum Salam, MD, vice president for medical education, announced the survey’s results at a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Dr. Lopez and Dr. Salam highlighted some of the findings and expressed their enthusiasm about the recent increases in the use of telemedicine in a video interview. They also explained how telehealth benefits patients and the barriers to more widespread use of telemedicine.

Dr. Lopez and Dr. Salam did not disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]