The American Diabetes Association recommends that patients on intensive insulin regimens self-monitor blood glucose (SMBG) to assist in therapy optimization.¹ To be useful, SMBG data must be captured by patients, shared with care teams, and used and interpreted by patients and practitioners.^2,3 Communication of SMBG data from the patient to practitioner can be challenging. Although technology can help in this process, limitations exist, such as manual data entry into systems, patient and/or practitioner technological challenges (eg, accessing interface), and compatibility and integration between SMBG devices and electronic health record (EHR) systems.⁴

The Boise Veterans Affairs Medical Center (BVAMC) in Idaho serves more than 100,000 veterans. It includes a main site, community-based outpatient clinics, and a clinical resource hub that provides telehealth services to veterans residing in rural neighboring states. The BVAMC pharmacy department provides both inpatient and outpatient services. At the BVAMC, clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) are independent practitioners who support their care teams in comprehensive medication management and have the ability to initiate, modify, and discontinue drug therapy for referred patients.⁵ A prominent role of CPPs in primary care teams is to manage patients with uncontrolled diabetes and intensive insulin regimens, in which SMBG data are vital to therapy optimization. As collecting SMBG data from patients is seen anecdotally as time intensive, we determined the mean time spent by CPPs collecting patient SMBG data and its potential implications.

Methods

Pharmacists at BVAMC were asked to estimate and record the following: SMBG data collection method, time spent collecting data, extra time spent documenting or formatting SMBG readings, total patient visit time, and visit type. Time was collected in minutes. Extra time spent documenting or formatting SMBG readings included any additional time formatting or entering data in the clinical note after talking to the patient; if this was done while multitasking and talking to the patient, it was not considered extra time. For total patient visit time, pharmacists were asked to estimate only time spent discussing diabetes care and collecting SMBG data. Visit types were categorized as in-person/face-to-face, telephone, and telehealth using clinical video telehealth (CVT)/VA Video Connect (VVC). Data were collected using a standardized spreadsheet. The spreadsheet was pilot tested by a CPP before distribution to all pharmacists.

CPPs were educated about the project in March 2021 and were asked to record data for a 1-week period between April 5, 2021, and April 30, 2021. One CPP also provided delayed data collected from May 17 to 21, 2021, and these data were included in our analysis.

Descriptive statistics were used to determine the mean time spent by CPPs collecting SMBG data. Unpaired t tests were used to compare time spent collecting SMBG data by different collection methods and patient visit types. A P value of ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. Data were organized in Microsoft Excel, and statistics were completed with JMP Pro v15.

Results

Eight CPPs provided data from 120 patient encounters. For all patient encounter types, the mean time spent collecting SMBG data was 3.3 minutes, and completing additional documentation/formatting was 1.3 minutes (Table 1).

When compared by the SMBG collection method, the longest time spent collecting SMBG data was with patient report (3.7 minutes), and the longest time spent documenting/formatting time was with meter download/home telehealth (2 minutes). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to collect SMBG data between patient report and other methods (3.7 minutes vs 2.8 minutes; P = .07).

When compared by visit type, there was not a statistically significant difference between time spent collecting SMBG data (3.8 minutes vs 3.2 minutes; P = .39) (Table 2).

Discussion

We found that the mean amount of time spent collecting and documenting/formatting SMBG data was only 4.6 minutes; however, this still represented a substantial portion of visit time. For telephone and CVT/VVC appointments, this represented > 25% of total visit time. While CPPs make important contributions to interprofessional team management of patients with diabetes, their cost is not trivial.^6-8 It is worth exploring the most effective and efficient ways to use CPPs. Our results indicate that streamlining SMBG data collection may be beneficial.

Pharmacy technicians, licensed practical nurses/clinical associates, registered nurses/nurse care managers, or other team members could help improve SMBG data collection. Using other team members is also an opportunity for comanagement, for team collaboration, and for more patients to be seen. For example, if a CPP currently has 12 patient encounters that last 20 minutes each, this results in about 240 minutes of direct patient care. If patient encounters were 16 minutes, CPPS could have 15 patient encounters in 240 minutes. Saved time could be used for other clinical tasks involved in disease management or clinical reminder reviews. While there are benefits to CPPs collecting SMBG data, such as further inquiry about patient-reported values, other team members could also be trained to ask appropriate follow-up questions for abnormal blood glucose readings. In addition, leveraging current team members and optimizing their roles could prevent the need to acquire additional full-time equivalent employees.

Another opportunity to increase efficiency in SMBG data collection is with SMBG devices and EHR integration.^4,9 However, integration can be difficult with different types of SMBG devices and EHR platforms. Education for patients and practitioners could help to ensure accurate and reliable data uploads; patient internet availability; data protection, privacy, and sharing; workflow management; and clear patient-practitioner expectations.¹⁰ For example, if patient SMBG data are automatically uploaded to practitioners, patients’ expectations for practitioner review of data and follow-up need to be determined.

We found a subset of patient encounters (n = 23) where data collection and documenting/formatting represented more than half of the total visit time. In this subset, 13 SMBG reports were pulled from a log or meter, 8 were patient reported, and 3 were meter download or home telehealth.

Limitations

A potential reason for the lack of statistically significant differences in SMBG collection method or visit type in this study includes the small sample size. Participation in this work was voluntary, and all participating CPPs had ≥ 3 years of practice in their current setting, which includes a heavy workload of diabetes management. These pharmacists noted self-established procedures/systems for SMBG data collection, including the use of Excel spreadsheets with pregenerated formulas. For less experienced CPPs, SMBG data collection time may be even longer. Pharmacists also noted that they may limit time spent collecting SMBG data depending on the patient encounter and whether they have gathered sufficient data to guide clinical care. Other limitations of this work include data collection from a single institution and that the time documented represented estimates; there was no external monitor.

Conclusions

In this analysis, we found that CPPs spend about 3 minutes collecting SMBG data from patients, and about an additional 1 minute documenting and formatting data. While 4 to 5 minutes may not represent a substantial amount of time for one patient, it can be when multiplied by several patient encounters. The time spent collecting SMBG data did not significantly differ by collection method or visit type. Opportunities to increase efficiency in SMBG data collection, such as the use of nonpharmacist team members are worth exploring.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the pharmacists at the Boise Veterans Affairs Medical Center for their time and support of this work: Danielle Ahlstrom, Paul Black, Robyn Cruz, Sarah Naidoo, Anthony Nelson, Laura Spoutz, Eileen Twomey, Donovan Victorine, and Michelle Wilkin.

The American Diabetes Association recommends that patients on intensive insulin regimens self-monitor blood glucose (SMBG) to assist in therapy optimization.¹ To be useful, SMBG data must be captured by patients, shared with care teams, and used and interpreted by patients and practitioners.^2,3 Communication of SMBG data from the patient to practitioner can be challenging. Although technology can help in this process, limitations exist, such as manual data entry into systems, patient and/or practitioner technological challenges (eg, accessing interface), and compatibility and integration between SMBG devices and electronic health record (EHR) systems.⁴

The Boise Veterans Affairs Medical Center (BVAMC) in Idaho serves more than 100,000 veterans. It includes a main site, community-based outpatient clinics, and a clinical resource hub that provides telehealth services to veterans residing in rural neighboring states. The BVAMC pharmacy department provides both inpatient and outpatient services. At the BVAMC, clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) are independent practitioners who support their care teams in comprehensive medication management and have the ability to initiate, modify, and discontinue drug therapy for referred patients.⁵ A prominent role of CPPs in primary care teams is to manage patients with uncontrolled diabetes and intensive insulin regimens, in which SMBG data are vital to therapy optimization. As collecting SMBG data from patients is seen anecdotally as time intensive, we determined the mean time spent by CPPs collecting patient SMBG data and its potential implications.

Methods

Pharmacists at BVAMC were asked to estimate and record the following: SMBG data collection method, time spent collecting data, extra time spent documenting or formatting SMBG readings, total patient visit time, and visit type. Time was collected in minutes. Extra time spent documenting or formatting SMBG readings included any additional time formatting or entering data in the clinical note after talking to the patient; if this was done while multitasking and talking to the patient, it was not considered extra time. For total patient visit time, pharmacists were asked to estimate only time spent discussing diabetes care and collecting SMBG data. Visit types were categorized as in-person/face-to-face, telephone, and telehealth using clinical video telehealth (CVT)/VA Video Connect (VVC). Data were collected using a standardized spreadsheet. The spreadsheet was pilot tested by a CPP before distribution to all pharmacists.

CPPs were educated about the project in March 2021 and were asked to record data for a 1-week period between April 5, 2021, and April 30, 2021. One CPP also provided delayed data collected from May 17 to 21, 2021, and these data were included in our analysis.

Descriptive statistics were used to determine the mean time spent by CPPs collecting SMBG data. Unpaired t tests were used to compare time spent collecting SMBG data by different collection methods and patient visit types. A P value of ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. Data were organized in Microsoft Excel, and statistics were completed with JMP Pro v15.

Results

Eight CPPs provided data from 120 patient encounters. For all patient encounter types, the mean time spent collecting SMBG data was 3.3 minutes, and completing additional documentation/formatting was 1.3 minutes (Table 1).

When compared by the SMBG collection method, the longest time spent collecting SMBG data was with patient report (3.7 minutes), and the longest time spent documenting/formatting time was with meter download/home telehealth (2 minutes). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to collect SMBG data between patient report and other methods (3.7 minutes vs 2.8 minutes; P = .07).

When compared by visit type, there was not a statistically significant difference between time spent collecting SMBG data (3.8 minutes vs 3.2 minutes; P = .39) (Table 2).

Discussion

We found that the mean amount of time spent collecting and documenting/formatting SMBG data was only 4.6 minutes; however, this still represented a substantial portion of visit time. For telephone and CVT/VVC appointments, this represented > 25% of total visit time. While CPPs make important contributions to interprofessional team management of patients with diabetes, their cost is not trivial.^6-8 It is worth exploring the most effective and efficient ways to use CPPs. Our results indicate that streamlining SMBG data collection may be beneficial.

Pharmacy technicians, licensed practical nurses/clinical associates, registered nurses/nurse care managers, or other team members could help improve SMBG data collection. Using other team members is also an opportunity for comanagement, for team collaboration, and for more patients to be seen. For example, if a CPP currently has 12 patient encounters that last 20 minutes each, this results in about 240 minutes of direct patient care. If patient encounters were 16 minutes, CPPS could have 15 patient encounters in 240 minutes. Saved time could be used for other clinical tasks involved in disease management or clinical reminder reviews. While there are benefits to CPPs collecting SMBG data, such as further inquiry about patient-reported values, other team members could also be trained to ask appropriate follow-up questions for abnormal blood glucose readings. In addition, leveraging current team members and optimizing their roles could prevent the need to acquire additional full-time equivalent employees.

Another opportunity to increase efficiency in SMBG data collection is with SMBG devices and EHR integration.^4,9 However, integration can be difficult with different types of SMBG devices and EHR platforms. Education for patients and practitioners could help to ensure accurate and reliable data uploads; patient internet availability; data protection, privacy, and sharing; workflow management; and clear patient-practitioner expectations.¹⁰ For example, if patient SMBG data are automatically uploaded to practitioners, patients’ expectations for practitioner review of data and follow-up need to be determined.

We found a subset of patient encounters (n = 23) where data collection and documenting/formatting represented more than half of the total visit time. In this subset, 13 SMBG reports were pulled from a log or meter, 8 were patient reported, and 3 were meter download or home telehealth.

Limitations

A potential reason for the lack of statistically significant differences in SMBG collection method or visit type in this study includes the small sample size. Participation in this work was voluntary, and all participating CPPs had ≥ 3 years of practice in their current setting, which includes a heavy workload of diabetes management. These pharmacists noted self-established procedures/systems for SMBG data collection, including the use of Excel spreadsheets with pregenerated formulas. For less experienced CPPs, SMBG data collection time may be even longer. Pharmacists also noted that they may limit time spent collecting SMBG data depending on the patient encounter and whether they have gathered sufficient data to guide clinical care. Other limitations of this work include data collection from a single institution and that the time documented represented estimates; there was no external monitor.

Conclusions

In this analysis, we found that CPPs spend about 3 minutes collecting SMBG data from patients, and about an additional 1 minute documenting and formatting data. While 4 to 5 minutes may not represent a substantial amount of time for one patient, it can be when multiplied by several patient encounters. The time spent collecting SMBG data did not significantly differ by collection method or visit type. Opportunities to increase efficiency in SMBG data collection, such as the use of nonpharmacist team members are worth exploring.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the pharmacists at the Boise Veterans Affairs Medical Center for their time and support of this work: Danielle Ahlstrom, Paul Black, Robyn Cruz, Sarah Naidoo, Anthony Nelson, Laura Spoutz, Eileen Twomey, Donovan Victorine, and Michelle Wilkin.

The American Diabetes Association recommends that patients on intensive insulin regimens self-monitor blood glucose (SMBG) to assist in therapy optimization.¹ To be useful, SMBG data must be captured by patients, shared with care teams, and used and interpreted by patients and practitioners.^2,3 Communication of SMBG data from the patient to practitioner can be challenging. Although technology can help in this process, limitations exist, such as manual data entry into systems, patient and/or practitioner technological challenges (eg, accessing interface), and compatibility and integration between SMBG devices and electronic health record (EHR) systems.⁴

The Boise Veterans Affairs Medical Center (BVAMC) in Idaho serves more than 100,000 veterans. It includes a main site, community-based outpatient clinics, and a clinical resource hub that provides telehealth services to veterans residing in rural neighboring states. The BVAMC pharmacy department provides both inpatient and outpatient services. At the BVAMC, clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) are independent practitioners who support their care teams in comprehensive medication management and have the ability to initiate, modify, and discontinue drug therapy for referred patients.⁵ A prominent role of CPPs in primary care teams is to manage patients with uncontrolled diabetes and intensive insulin regimens, in which SMBG data are vital to therapy optimization. As collecting SMBG data from patients is seen anecdotally as time intensive, we determined the mean time spent by CPPs collecting patient SMBG data and its potential implications.

Methods

Pharmacists at BVAMC were asked to estimate and record the following: SMBG data collection method, time spent collecting data, extra time spent documenting or formatting SMBG readings, total patient visit time, and visit type. Time was collected in minutes. Extra time spent documenting or formatting SMBG readings included any additional time formatting or entering data in the clinical note after talking to the patient; if this was done while multitasking and talking to the patient, it was not considered extra time. For total patient visit time, pharmacists were asked to estimate only time spent discussing diabetes care and collecting SMBG data. Visit types were categorized as in-person/face-to-face, telephone, and telehealth using clinical video telehealth (CVT)/VA Video Connect (VVC). Data were collected using a standardized spreadsheet. The spreadsheet was pilot tested by a CPP before distribution to all pharmacists.

CPPs were educated about the project in March 2021 and were asked to record data for a 1-week period between April 5, 2021, and April 30, 2021. One CPP also provided delayed data collected from May 17 to 21, 2021, and these data were included in our analysis.

Descriptive statistics were used to determine the mean time spent by CPPs collecting SMBG data. Unpaired t tests were used to compare time spent collecting SMBG data by different collection methods and patient visit types. A P value of ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. Data were organized in Microsoft Excel, and statistics were completed with JMP Pro v15.

Results

Eight CPPs provided data from 120 patient encounters. For all patient encounter types, the mean time spent collecting SMBG data was 3.3 minutes, and completing additional documentation/formatting was 1.3 minutes (Table 1).

When compared by the SMBG collection method, the longest time spent collecting SMBG data was with patient report (3.7 minutes), and the longest time spent documenting/formatting time was with meter download/home telehealth (2 minutes). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to collect SMBG data between patient report and other methods (3.7 minutes vs 2.8 minutes; P = .07).

When compared by visit type, there was not a statistically significant difference between time spent collecting SMBG data (3.8 minutes vs 3.2 minutes; P = .39) (Table 2).

Discussion

We found that the mean amount of time spent collecting and documenting/formatting SMBG data was only 4.6 minutes; however, this still represented a substantial portion of visit time. For telephone and CVT/VVC appointments, this represented > 25% of total visit time. While CPPs make important contributions to interprofessional team management of patients with diabetes, their cost is not trivial.^6-8 It is worth exploring the most effective and efficient ways to use CPPs. Our results indicate that streamlining SMBG data collection may be beneficial.

Pharmacy technicians, licensed practical nurses/clinical associates, registered nurses/nurse care managers, or other team members could help improve SMBG data collection. Using other team members is also an opportunity for comanagement, for team collaboration, and for more patients to be seen. For example, if a CPP currently has 12 patient encounters that last 20 minutes each, this results in about 240 minutes of direct patient care. If patient encounters were 16 minutes, CPPS could have 15 patient encounters in 240 minutes. Saved time could be used for other clinical tasks involved in disease management or clinical reminder reviews. While there are benefits to CPPs collecting SMBG data, such as further inquiry about patient-reported values, other team members could also be trained to ask appropriate follow-up questions for abnormal blood glucose readings. In addition, leveraging current team members and optimizing their roles could prevent the need to acquire additional full-time equivalent employees.

Another opportunity to increase efficiency in SMBG data collection is with SMBG devices and EHR integration.^4,9 However, integration can be difficult with different types of SMBG devices and EHR platforms. Education for patients and practitioners could help to ensure accurate and reliable data uploads; patient internet availability; data protection, privacy, and sharing; workflow management; and clear patient-practitioner expectations.¹⁰ For example, if patient SMBG data are automatically uploaded to practitioners, patients’ expectations for practitioner review of data and follow-up need to be determined.

We found a subset of patient encounters (n = 23) where data collection and documenting/formatting represented more than half of the total visit time. In this subset, 13 SMBG reports were pulled from a log or meter, 8 were patient reported, and 3 were meter download or home telehealth.

Limitations

A potential reason for the lack of statistically significant differences in SMBG collection method or visit type in this study includes the small sample size. Participation in this work was voluntary, and all participating CPPs had ≥ 3 years of practice in their current setting, which includes a heavy workload of diabetes management. These pharmacists noted self-established procedures/systems for SMBG data collection, including the use of Excel spreadsheets with pregenerated formulas. For less experienced CPPs, SMBG data collection time may be even longer. Pharmacists also noted that they may limit time spent collecting SMBG data depending on the patient encounter and whether they have gathered sufficient data to guide clinical care. Other limitations of this work include data collection from a single institution and that the time documented represented estimates; there was no external monitor.

Conclusions

In this analysis, we found that CPPs spend about 3 minutes collecting SMBG data from patients, and about an additional 1 minute documenting and formatting data. While 4 to 5 minutes may not represent a substantial amount of time for one patient, it can be when multiplied by several patient encounters. The time spent collecting SMBG data did not significantly differ by collection method or visit type. Opportunities to increase efficiency in SMBG data collection, such as the use of nonpharmacist team members are worth exploring.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the pharmacists at the Boise Veterans Affairs Medical Center for their time and support of this work: Danielle Ahlstrom, Paul Black, Robyn Cruz, Sarah Naidoo, Anthony Nelson, Laura Spoutz, Eileen Twomey, Donovan Victorine, and Michelle Wilkin.

The European Medicines Agency has validated the marketing authorization application for delgocitinib cream, for the treatment of adults with chronic moderate to severe hand eczema, which marks the beginning of the review process for the treatment by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.

Delgocitinib is an investigational topical pan–Janus kinase inhibitor that inhibits activation of the JAK-STAT pathway.

The development follows results reported from two phase 3 clinical trials known as DELTA 1 and DELTA 2, which evaluated the safety and efficacy of delgocitinib cream applications twice per day compared with a vehicle cream in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema. Results of DELTA 1 were presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. A multisite, open-label extension trial known as DELTA 3 is still in progress.

According to a press release from LEO Pharma, which is developing the product, the efficacy and safety of delgocitinib cream have not been evaluated by any regulatory authority. In 2020, the drug was granted fast-track designation by the Food and Drug Administration for the potential treatment of adults with moderate to severe chronic hand eczema. There are currently no treatment options available in the United States specifically approved for treating the condition.



 

The European Medicines Agency has validated the marketing authorization application for delgocitinib cream, for the treatment of adults with chronic moderate to severe hand eczema, which marks the beginning of the review process for the treatment by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.

Delgocitinib is an investigational topical pan–Janus kinase inhibitor that inhibits activation of the JAK-STAT pathway.

The development follows results reported from two phase 3 clinical trials known as DELTA 1 and DELTA 2, which evaluated the safety and efficacy of delgocitinib cream applications twice per day compared with a vehicle cream in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema. Results of DELTA 1 were presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. A multisite, open-label extension trial known as DELTA 3 is still in progress.

According to a press release from LEO Pharma, which is developing the product, the efficacy and safety of delgocitinib cream have not been evaluated by any regulatory authority. In 2020, the drug was granted fast-track designation by the Food and Drug Administration for the potential treatment of adults with moderate to severe chronic hand eczema. There are currently no treatment options available in the United States specifically approved for treating the condition.



 

The European Medicines Agency has validated the marketing authorization application for delgocitinib cream, for the treatment of adults with chronic moderate to severe hand eczema, which marks the beginning of the review process for the treatment by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.

Delgocitinib is an investigational topical pan–Janus kinase inhibitor that inhibits activation of the JAK-STAT pathway.

The development follows results reported from two phase 3 clinical trials known as DELTA 1 and DELTA 2, which evaluated the safety and efficacy of delgocitinib cream applications twice per day compared with a vehicle cream in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema. Results of DELTA 1 were presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. A multisite, open-label extension trial known as DELTA 3 is still in progress.

According to a press release from LEO Pharma, which is developing the product, the efficacy and safety of delgocitinib cream have not been evaluated by any regulatory authority. In 2020, the drug was granted fast-track designation by the Food and Drug Administration for the potential treatment of adults with moderate to severe chronic hand eczema. There are currently no treatment options available in the United States specifically approved for treating the condition.



 

Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.

They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.

According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.

“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.

Matched cohort study

The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.

The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).

Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.

The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.

While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.

Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.” 

The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.

They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.

According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.

“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.

Matched cohort study

The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.

The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).

Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.

The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.

While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.

Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.” 

The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.

They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.

According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.

“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.

Matched cohort study

The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.

The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).

Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.

The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.

While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.

Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.” 

The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

TOPLINE:

More than 3.6 million women of reproductive age lack access to fertility clinics offering standard fertility preservation services before cancer treatment, a study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this cross-sectional analysis, researchers identified 370 fertility centers in the United States (361 in the continental U.S.) that provide oncofertility services and that met criteria for an oncofertility center.
• Clinics were considered oncofertility centers if they offered oocyte cryopreservation, had performed at least one fertility preservation cycle in 2018, reported serving people without partners, and had an embryology laboratory that was accredited per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
• Researchers then quantified the number of young women potentially eligible for oncofertility services who lived farther than 2 hours from an oncofertility center.
• In a secondary analysis, the team assessed the association between geographic access and state fertility preservation insurance mandates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 3.63 million (5.7%) young women of reproductive age in the United States (aged 15-4) live more than 2 hours from an oncofertility center.
• The greatest gaps in access are in the Mountain West, West North Central, and Southwest regions; for instance, in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming fewer than half of the at-risk population has geographic access to an oncofertility center.
• Among the 11 states with fertility preservation insurance mandates, 98.5% of at-risk women have geographic access to an oncofertility center; in the 17 states without fertility preservation legislation, 79.6% of at-risk women have access to an oncofertility center.

IN PRACTICE:

Just over 3.6 million “reproductive-age female individuals lack geographic access to oncofertility services, especially in the Mountain West and West North Central regions,” the authors concluded. “Significant geographic disparities in access to fertility preservation in the U.S. require strategic expansion of care, especially given the growing demand for oncofertility services.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Benjamin Peipert, MD, with Duke University, Durham, N.C., was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors relied on clinic data reported to the CDC, made assumptions about reasonable travel time, and may have underestimated access in some areas.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More than 3.6 million women of reproductive age lack access to fertility clinics offering standard fertility preservation services before cancer treatment, a study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this cross-sectional analysis, researchers identified 370 fertility centers in the United States (361 in the continental U.S.) that provide oncofertility services and that met criteria for an oncofertility center.
• Clinics were considered oncofertility centers if they offered oocyte cryopreservation, had performed at least one fertility preservation cycle in 2018, reported serving people without partners, and had an embryology laboratory that was accredited per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
• Researchers then quantified the number of young women potentially eligible for oncofertility services who lived farther than 2 hours from an oncofertility center.
• In a secondary analysis, the team assessed the association between geographic access and state fertility preservation insurance mandates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 3.63 million (5.7%) young women of reproductive age in the United States (aged 15-4) live more than 2 hours from an oncofertility center.
• The greatest gaps in access are in the Mountain West, West North Central, and Southwest regions; for instance, in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming fewer than half of the at-risk population has geographic access to an oncofertility center.
• Among the 11 states with fertility preservation insurance mandates, 98.5% of at-risk women have geographic access to an oncofertility center; in the 17 states without fertility preservation legislation, 79.6% of at-risk women have access to an oncofertility center.

IN PRACTICE:

Just over 3.6 million “reproductive-age female individuals lack geographic access to oncofertility services, especially in the Mountain West and West North Central regions,” the authors concluded. “Significant geographic disparities in access to fertility preservation in the U.S. require strategic expansion of care, especially given the growing demand for oncofertility services.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Benjamin Peipert, MD, with Duke University, Durham, N.C., was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors relied on clinic data reported to the CDC, made assumptions about reasonable travel time, and may have underestimated access in some areas.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More than 3.6 million women of reproductive age lack access to fertility clinics offering standard fertility preservation services before cancer treatment, a study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this cross-sectional analysis, researchers identified 370 fertility centers in the United States (361 in the continental U.S.) that provide oncofertility services and that met criteria for an oncofertility center.
• Clinics were considered oncofertility centers if they offered oocyte cryopreservation, had performed at least one fertility preservation cycle in 2018, reported serving people without partners, and had an embryology laboratory that was accredited per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
• Researchers then quantified the number of young women potentially eligible for oncofertility services who lived farther than 2 hours from an oncofertility center.
• In a secondary analysis, the team assessed the association between geographic access and state fertility preservation insurance mandates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 3.63 million (5.7%) young women of reproductive age in the United States (aged 15-4) live more than 2 hours from an oncofertility center.
• The greatest gaps in access are in the Mountain West, West North Central, and Southwest regions; for instance, in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming fewer than half of the at-risk population has geographic access to an oncofertility center.
• Among the 11 states with fertility preservation insurance mandates, 98.5% of at-risk women have geographic access to an oncofertility center; in the 17 states without fertility preservation legislation, 79.6% of at-risk women have access to an oncofertility center.

IN PRACTICE:

Just over 3.6 million “reproductive-age female individuals lack geographic access to oncofertility services, especially in the Mountain West and West North Central regions,” the authors concluded. “Significant geographic disparities in access to fertility preservation in the U.S. require strategic expansion of care, especially given the growing demand for oncofertility services.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Benjamin Peipert, MD, with Duke University, Durham, N.C., was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors relied on clinic data reported to the CDC, made assumptions about reasonable travel time, and may have underestimated access in some areas.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

By now, concerns about COVID-related lawsuits have faded into the rear view mirror for most physicians.

But just when COVID lawsuits appear to be dwindling out, legal experts see a new lawsuit risk on the horizon – long COVID claims. While some say it’s doubtful the claims will succeed, the lawsuits could still create legal headaches for doctors in the form of time and money.

Long COVID claims are defined as complaints that allege that a diagnosis of long COVID was missed or delayed and that caused harm or injury. Lawsuits may also include claims in which patients allege that they were misdiagnosed as having long COVID when they were really suffering from another condition.

So far, a handful of long COVID claims have come down the pipeline, said Peter A. Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claims and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group.

“This is an area that is emerging as we speak,” Mr. Kolbert said. “We are starting to see these claims trickle in.”

In a recent case, for example, a patient sued her primary care physician for negligence, alleging her original SARS-CoV-2 infection was mismanaged and that this led to permanent neuropathy from long COVID. Had the patient been treated appropriately, the patient contends, she would not have developed long COVID or the resulting neuropathy, said Mr. Kolbert. An outcome in the case has not yet been reached, added Mr. Kolbert, who heard about the claim from a colleague.

The increase in the number of lawsuits raises concerns about how courts and juries might decide long COVID claims when so much about the condition is still unknown and best treatment practices are still developing. Research shows that long COVID occurs in at least 10% of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and more than 200 symptoms have been identified. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 15% of the U.S. population believe they have experienced the symptoms of long COVID at some point, and 6% of people believe they currently have long COVID.

The risk of long COVID lawsuits underscores the importance of physicians taking proactive steps to protect themselves from liability when treating patients who might have the condition, say legal experts.

“There are legal standards that say new, unestablished scientific principles shouldn’t be first tested by a jury, they should be recognized and established within their [professional] area,” Mr. Kolbert said. “While we are seeing lawsuits related to long COVID, I think it is truly putting the cart before the horse, because there needs to be societal recognition that we’re still learning how to define and treat long COVID.”
 

What are patients alleging?

In the few long COVID claims that have arisen, some complaints have alleged delay in the recognition and treatment of long COVID, according to Mr. Kolbert. There have also been claims that physicians failed to refer a patient with long COVID to a specialist in a timely way and that this results in the patient’s experiencing chronic fatigue or a neuropathy.

Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms associated with long COVID, according to recent studies. Other symptoms include postexertional malaise, brain fog, and gastrointestinal problems.

Another rising legal theme is failure to adequately communicate with patients about what long COVID is and what it entails.

Whether plaintiffs who bring long COVID claims will be successful in court remains a question.

Andrew D. DeSimone, JD, a Lexington, Ky.–based medical malpractice defense attorney, said he has not seen any claims involving long COVID. He added that a long COVID claim would be challenging to prove, considering the standard of care for treating the condition is still evolving. Plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action must prove that physicians owed a duty of care to the patient, that the doctor breached that duty by failing to conform to the standard of care, and that the breach caused an injury that harmed the patient.

Mr. DeSimone also doubts whether juries would be very sympathetic to such plaintiffs.

“There’s a lot of fatigue around COVID still,” he said. “I don’t know if a jury would buy into someone claiming long COVID. I think the claim would have a hard time gaining traction. Not that it’s impossible.”

Another unanswered question is whether legal protections enacted by states during the pandemic might apply to long COVID claims.

Shortly after the pandemic started, most states enacted laws or executive orders that shielded physicians from liability claims relating to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proved. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.

Some of these state immunities have since expired. Other states have extended their legal protections for short periods. In Indiana, for example, physicians and businesses are protected until Dec. 31, 2024, from civil tort actions that allege damages arising from COVID-19.

It’s possible that in long COVID lawsuits, physicians would be protected by the immunities unless the cases come after the protections expire, said J. Richard Moore, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis.

“I could foresee long COVID claims that don’t accrue until after December 2024, meaning it only becomes clear that a patient is struggling with long COVID–related symptoms after that date,” he said. “That could result in COVID claims that do not fall under the immunities.”

Mr. Moore said that if long COVID claims become truly problematic, the legislature could extend the immunities.

Other states, such as Washington, have statutes in place that increase the burden of proof for plaintiffs in cases in which care is affected by COVID and/or the treating of COVID. Elizabeth A. Leedom, a Seattle-based medical liability defense attorney, said the law would likely encompass long COVID claims if the care and treatment at issue occurred during the COVID state of emergency.

Compliance with current treatment guidelines is likely to be a good defense against any claim of delay/failure to diagnose COVID, including long COVID, she said.

Mr. Kolbert, however, doubts that the state immunities would protect against the claims.

“Courts are enforcing qualified immunities as to [traditional] COVID claims. However, I suspect that long COVID claims will fall into a category of traditional medical malpractice claim, such as delay in or failure to diagnose,” he said. In such cases, physicians “may not be able to take advantage of state-qualified immunities. Of course, this will depend upon the language of each state’s qualified immunity provisions.”

As for the statute of limitations, the clock generally starts running either when the alleged negligent conduct occurred or when the patient knew or, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, should have known, that they had been harmed by the alleged negligence, Mr. Moore said. Statutes of limitations are state specific, but the majority of states mandate a 2- to 3-year limit between the injury and the filing of a claim.

So, while the statute of limitations may be soon expiring for alleged harm that occurred during the pandemic, for patients newly diagnosed with long COVID or who have just discovered associated injuries, the clock may have just started ticking.
 

How to protect yourself against suits

Avoiding liability associated with long COVID involves the traditional legal guidance physicians are used to hearing, but with an added factor, Mr. Kolbert said.

There always needs to be communication with patients regarding the disease process, but in this area, there needs to be strong communication as to whether patients have had COVID in the past and what symptoms they are experiencing, he said. Physicians should ensure that patients know that long COVID may present in a variety of ways and that there is no definitive test for long COVID.

Physicians should document when the patient has been instructed to follow up and should take necessary steps to ensure the patient returns for follow-up care, he added.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is making sure not to assume a condition or symptom is the result of long COVID, he said. Care should be taken not to diagnose long COVID without excluding traditional causes.

“Ensure that patients know that COVID is not over, per se, and that science supports vaccination,” Mr. Kolbert said. “The best defense here is a strong communicative offense, engaging with the patient and thoughtfully charting about this.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

By now, concerns about COVID-related lawsuits have faded into the rear view mirror for most physicians.

But just when COVID lawsuits appear to be dwindling out, legal experts see a new lawsuit risk on the horizon – long COVID claims. While some say it’s doubtful the claims will succeed, the lawsuits could still create legal headaches for doctors in the form of time and money.

Long COVID claims are defined as complaints that allege that a diagnosis of long COVID was missed or delayed and that caused harm or injury. Lawsuits may also include claims in which patients allege that they were misdiagnosed as having long COVID when they were really suffering from another condition.

So far, a handful of long COVID claims have come down the pipeline, said Peter A. Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claims and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group.

“This is an area that is emerging as we speak,” Mr. Kolbert said. “We are starting to see these claims trickle in.”

In a recent case, for example, a patient sued her primary care physician for negligence, alleging her original SARS-CoV-2 infection was mismanaged and that this led to permanent neuropathy from long COVID. Had the patient been treated appropriately, the patient contends, she would not have developed long COVID or the resulting neuropathy, said Mr. Kolbert. An outcome in the case has not yet been reached, added Mr. Kolbert, who heard about the claim from a colleague.

The increase in the number of lawsuits raises concerns about how courts and juries might decide long COVID claims when so much about the condition is still unknown and best treatment practices are still developing. Research shows that long COVID occurs in at least 10% of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and more than 200 symptoms have been identified. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 15% of the U.S. population believe they have experienced the symptoms of long COVID at some point, and 6% of people believe they currently have long COVID.

The risk of long COVID lawsuits underscores the importance of physicians taking proactive steps to protect themselves from liability when treating patients who might have the condition, say legal experts.

“There are legal standards that say new, unestablished scientific principles shouldn’t be first tested by a jury, they should be recognized and established within their [professional] area,” Mr. Kolbert said. “While we are seeing lawsuits related to long COVID, I think it is truly putting the cart before the horse, because there needs to be societal recognition that we’re still learning how to define and treat long COVID.”
 

What are patients alleging?

In the few long COVID claims that have arisen, some complaints have alleged delay in the recognition and treatment of long COVID, according to Mr. Kolbert. There have also been claims that physicians failed to refer a patient with long COVID to a specialist in a timely way and that this results in the patient’s experiencing chronic fatigue or a neuropathy.

Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms associated with long COVID, according to recent studies. Other symptoms include postexertional malaise, brain fog, and gastrointestinal problems.

Another rising legal theme is failure to adequately communicate with patients about what long COVID is and what it entails.

Whether plaintiffs who bring long COVID claims will be successful in court remains a question.

Andrew D. DeSimone, JD, a Lexington, Ky.–based medical malpractice defense attorney, said he has not seen any claims involving long COVID. He added that a long COVID claim would be challenging to prove, considering the standard of care for treating the condition is still evolving. Plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action must prove that physicians owed a duty of care to the patient, that the doctor breached that duty by failing to conform to the standard of care, and that the breach caused an injury that harmed the patient.

Mr. DeSimone also doubts whether juries would be very sympathetic to such plaintiffs.

“There’s a lot of fatigue around COVID still,” he said. “I don’t know if a jury would buy into someone claiming long COVID. I think the claim would have a hard time gaining traction. Not that it’s impossible.”

Another unanswered question is whether legal protections enacted by states during the pandemic might apply to long COVID claims.

Shortly after the pandemic started, most states enacted laws or executive orders that shielded physicians from liability claims relating to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proved. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.

Some of these state immunities have since expired. Other states have extended their legal protections for short periods. In Indiana, for example, physicians and businesses are protected until Dec. 31, 2024, from civil tort actions that allege damages arising from COVID-19.

It’s possible that in long COVID lawsuits, physicians would be protected by the immunities unless the cases come after the protections expire, said J. Richard Moore, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis.

“I could foresee long COVID claims that don’t accrue until after December 2024, meaning it only becomes clear that a patient is struggling with long COVID–related symptoms after that date,” he said. “That could result in COVID claims that do not fall under the immunities.”

Mr. Moore said that if long COVID claims become truly problematic, the legislature could extend the immunities.

Other states, such as Washington, have statutes in place that increase the burden of proof for plaintiffs in cases in which care is affected by COVID and/or the treating of COVID. Elizabeth A. Leedom, a Seattle-based medical liability defense attorney, said the law would likely encompass long COVID claims if the care and treatment at issue occurred during the COVID state of emergency.

Compliance with current treatment guidelines is likely to be a good defense against any claim of delay/failure to diagnose COVID, including long COVID, she said.

Mr. Kolbert, however, doubts that the state immunities would protect against the claims.

“Courts are enforcing qualified immunities as to [traditional] COVID claims. However, I suspect that long COVID claims will fall into a category of traditional medical malpractice claim, such as delay in or failure to diagnose,” he said. In such cases, physicians “may not be able to take advantage of state-qualified immunities. Of course, this will depend upon the language of each state’s qualified immunity provisions.”

As for the statute of limitations, the clock generally starts running either when the alleged negligent conduct occurred or when the patient knew or, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, should have known, that they had been harmed by the alleged negligence, Mr. Moore said. Statutes of limitations are state specific, but the majority of states mandate a 2- to 3-year limit between the injury and the filing of a claim.

So, while the statute of limitations may be soon expiring for alleged harm that occurred during the pandemic, for patients newly diagnosed with long COVID or who have just discovered associated injuries, the clock may have just started ticking.
 

How to protect yourself against suits

Avoiding liability associated with long COVID involves the traditional legal guidance physicians are used to hearing, but with an added factor, Mr. Kolbert said.

There always needs to be communication with patients regarding the disease process, but in this area, there needs to be strong communication as to whether patients have had COVID in the past and what symptoms they are experiencing, he said. Physicians should ensure that patients know that long COVID may present in a variety of ways and that there is no definitive test for long COVID.

Physicians should document when the patient has been instructed to follow up and should take necessary steps to ensure the patient returns for follow-up care, he added.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is making sure not to assume a condition or symptom is the result of long COVID, he said. Care should be taken not to diagnose long COVID without excluding traditional causes.

“Ensure that patients know that COVID is not over, per se, and that science supports vaccination,” Mr. Kolbert said. “The best defense here is a strong communicative offense, engaging with the patient and thoughtfully charting about this.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

By now, concerns about COVID-related lawsuits have faded into the rear view mirror for most physicians.

But just when COVID lawsuits appear to be dwindling out, legal experts see a new lawsuit risk on the horizon – long COVID claims. While some say it’s doubtful the claims will succeed, the lawsuits could still create legal headaches for doctors in the form of time and money.

Long COVID claims are defined as complaints that allege that a diagnosis of long COVID was missed or delayed and that caused harm or injury. Lawsuits may also include claims in which patients allege that they were misdiagnosed as having long COVID when they were really suffering from another condition.

So far, a handful of long COVID claims have come down the pipeline, said Peter A. Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claims and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group.

“This is an area that is emerging as we speak,” Mr. Kolbert said. “We are starting to see these claims trickle in.”

In a recent case, for example, a patient sued her primary care physician for negligence, alleging her original SARS-CoV-2 infection was mismanaged and that this led to permanent neuropathy from long COVID. Had the patient been treated appropriately, the patient contends, she would not have developed long COVID or the resulting neuropathy, said Mr. Kolbert. An outcome in the case has not yet been reached, added Mr. Kolbert, who heard about the claim from a colleague.

The increase in the number of lawsuits raises concerns about how courts and juries might decide long COVID claims when so much about the condition is still unknown and best treatment practices are still developing. Research shows that long COVID occurs in at least 10% of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and more than 200 symptoms have been identified. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 15% of the U.S. population believe they have experienced the symptoms of long COVID at some point, and 6% of people believe they currently have long COVID.

The risk of long COVID lawsuits underscores the importance of physicians taking proactive steps to protect themselves from liability when treating patients who might have the condition, say legal experts.

“There are legal standards that say new, unestablished scientific principles shouldn’t be first tested by a jury, they should be recognized and established within their [professional] area,” Mr. Kolbert said. “While we are seeing lawsuits related to long COVID, I think it is truly putting the cart before the horse, because there needs to be societal recognition that we’re still learning how to define and treat long COVID.”
 

What are patients alleging?

In the few long COVID claims that have arisen, some complaints have alleged delay in the recognition and treatment of long COVID, according to Mr. Kolbert. There have also been claims that physicians failed to refer a patient with long COVID to a specialist in a timely way and that this results in the patient’s experiencing chronic fatigue or a neuropathy.

Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms associated with long COVID, according to recent studies. Other symptoms include postexertional malaise, brain fog, and gastrointestinal problems.

Another rising legal theme is failure to adequately communicate with patients about what long COVID is and what it entails.

Whether plaintiffs who bring long COVID claims will be successful in court remains a question.

Andrew D. DeSimone, JD, a Lexington, Ky.–based medical malpractice defense attorney, said he has not seen any claims involving long COVID. He added that a long COVID claim would be challenging to prove, considering the standard of care for treating the condition is still evolving. Plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action must prove that physicians owed a duty of care to the patient, that the doctor breached that duty by failing to conform to the standard of care, and that the breach caused an injury that harmed the patient.

Mr. DeSimone also doubts whether juries would be very sympathetic to such plaintiffs.

“There’s a lot of fatigue around COVID still,” he said. “I don’t know if a jury would buy into someone claiming long COVID. I think the claim would have a hard time gaining traction. Not that it’s impossible.”

Another unanswered question is whether legal protections enacted by states during the pandemic might apply to long COVID claims.

Shortly after the pandemic started, most states enacted laws or executive orders that shielded physicians from liability claims relating to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proved. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.

Some of these state immunities have since expired. Other states have extended their legal protections for short periods. In Indiana, for example, physicians and businesses are protected until Dec. 31, 2024, from civil tort actions that allege damages arising from COVID-19.

It’s possible that in long COVID lawsuits, physicians would be protected by the immunities unless the cases come after the protections expire, said J. Richard Moore, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis.

“I could foresee long COVID claims that don’t accrue until after December 2024, meaning it only becomes clear that a patient is struggling with long COVID–related symptoms after that date,” he said. “That could result in COVID claims that do not fall under the immunities.”

Mr. Moore said that if long COVID claims become truly problematic, the legislature could extend the immunities.

Other states, such as Washington, have statutes in place that increase the burden of proof for plaintiffs in cases in which care is affected by COVID and/or the treating of COVID. Elizabeth A. Leedom, a Seattle-based medical liability defense attorney, said the law would likely encompass long COVID claims if the care and treatment at issue occurred during the COVID state of emergency.

Compliance with current treatment guidelines is likely to be a good defense against any claim of delay/failure to diagnose COVID, including long COVID, she said.

Mr. Kolbert, however, doubts that the state immunities would protect against the claims.

“Courts are enforcing qualified immunities as to [traditional] COVID claims. However, I suspect that long COVID claims will fall into a category of traditional medical malpractice claim, such as delay in or failure to diagnose,” he said. In such cases, physicians “may not be able to take advantage of state-qualified immunities. Of course, this will depend upon the language of each state’s qualified immunity provisions.”

As for the statute of limitations, the clock generally starts running either when the alleged negligent conduct occurred or when the patient knew or, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, should have known, that they had been harmed by the alleged negligence, Mr. Moore said. Statutes of limitations are state specific, but the majority of states mandate a 2- to 3-year limit between the injury and the filing of a claim.

So, while the statute of limitations may be soon expiring for alleged harm that occurred during the pandemic, for patients newly diagnosed with long COVID or who have just discovered associated injuries, the clock may have just started ticking.
 

How to protect yourself against suits

Avoiding liability associated with long COVID involves the traditional legal guidance physicians are used to hearing, but with an added factor, Mr. Kolbert said.

There always needs to be communication with patients regarding the disease process, but in this area, there needs to be strong communication as to whether patients have had COVID in the past and what symptoms they are experiencing, he said. Physicians should ensure that patients know that long COVID may present in a variety of ways and that there is no definitive test for long COVID.

Physicians should document when the patient has been instructed to follow up and should take necessary steps to ensure the patient returns for follow-up care, he added.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is making sure not to assume a condition or symptom is the result of long COVID, he said. Care should be taken not to diagnose long COVID without excluding traditional causes.

“Ensure that patients know that COVID is not over, per se, and that science supports vaccination,” Mr. Kolbert said. “The best defense here is a strong communicative offense, engaging with the patient and thoughtfully charting about this.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately 20% of adults with axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) show active or structural spinal changes without changes in the sacroiliac joint, based on imaging data from 106 individuals. 

Axial PsA has been historically grouped with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but it has received more attention in recent years as a condition potentially distinct from axSpA, Henriette Käding, an MD and PhD student in the department of gastroenterology, infectiology, and rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in her research presentation at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). She added that the debate persists as to whether these conditions are on the same spectrum or should be separated.

Data from previous studies suggest differences in genetic, clinical, radiographic, and prognostic characteristics between axial PsA and axSpA that may affect patients’ response to available treatments. However, there are relatively little data available on distinguishing imaging and clinical features, and there’s a lack of classification criteria for axial PsA, Ms. Käding said.

Ms. Käding and colleagues prospectively collected data from 106 patients with axial PsA between August 2019 and June 2023 and presented the baseline data of this longitudinal project at the GRAPPA annual meeting in Dublin. At baseline, the researchers conducted clinical assessments of the participants, along with blood sampling, stool samples, and imaging protocols that included MRI of the whole spine and sacroiliac joint (SIJ).

The mean age of the included patients was 44.5 years; 55.7% were female. Inflammatory back pain was present in most of the patients at baseline (78.4%), and 48.1% were positive for HLA-B27, a genetic risk factor for both axSpA and axial PsA. Approximately one-third of the patients had elevated C-reactive protein (> 5 mg/L). In the baseline MRI scans, active inflammatory changes in the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) were seen in 51.9% of the patients and structural changes in 72.1%. MRI spine scans showed active changes in 58.7% of the patients. Notably, active and/or structural changes of the spine without changes in the SIJ appeared in 20% of the patients, Ms. Käding said.

With regard to existing classification criteria, the researchers observed that 92% of the patients met the CASPAR (Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria for PsA, 73% met the ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria, while 66% of patients met both ASAS and CASPAR criteria.

The study will be the first to include longitudinal MRI scans of the whole spine and SIJ in addition to conventional radiographs, Ms. Käding said.

Better characterization should improve treatment

“Axial involvement in PsA might, on one hand, go unnoticed, but on the other hand, it could also be misdiagnosed in patients with degenerative spinal disease,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, one of the study coauthors, also of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in an interview.

“By comprehending the unique characteristics, progression, and treatment responses within the axial domain, rheumatologists can customize interventions and therapies to effectively manage the psoriatic disease,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“One of the most significant findings [of the current study] is the relatively high frequency of spinal involvement without sacroiliac joint” involvement, Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin and senior author of the study, said in an interview. “This finding holds importance as, in primary axial SpA, the disease typically originates in the sacroiliac joints. In contrast, in PsA, the scenario differs, which has implications for the diagnostic approach in clinical practice.”

“In individuals with PsA, spinal involvement can occur independently of sacroiliac joint [involvement]. As a result, imaging studies conducted on patients suspected of having axial PsA should encompass not only the sacroiliac joints but also the spine,” Dr. Poddubnyy explained. “It is important to note, however, that imaging findings such as bony spurs and bone marrow edema might be caused by degeneration or mechanical issues and, therefore, need to be interpreted with caution within the clinical context.”

The study was supported in part by an unrestricted research grant from Novartis. Dr. Poddubnyy and Dr. Proft disclosed receiving research grants and consultancy payments from Novartis and serving on speaker bureaus for the company.

Approximately 20% of adults with axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) show active or structural spinal changes without changes in the sacroiliac joint, based on imaging data from 106 individuals. 

Axial PsA has been historically grouped with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but it has received more attention in recent years as a condition potentially distinct from axSpA, Henriette Käding, an MD and PhD student in the department of gastroenterology, infectiology, and rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in her research presentation at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). She added that the debate persists as to whether these conditions are on the same spectrum or should be separated.

Data from previous studies suggest differences in genetic, clinical, radiographic, and prognostic characteristics between axial PsA and axSpA that may affect patients’ response to available treatments. However, there are relatively little data available on distinguishing imaging and clinical features, and there’s a lack of classification criteria for axial PsA, Ms. Käding said.

Ms. Käding and colleagues prospectively collected data from 106 patients with axial PsA between August 2019 and June 2023 and presented the baseline data of this longitudinal project at the GRAPPA annual meeting in Dublin. At baseline, the researchers conducted clinical assessments of the participants, along with blood sampling, stool samples, and imaging protocols that included MRI of the whole spine and sacroiliac joint (SIJ).

The mean age of the included patients was 44.5 years; 55.7% were female. Inflammatory back pain was present in most of the patients at baseline (78.4%), and 48.1% were positive for HLA-B27, a genetic risk factor for both axSpA and axial PsA. Approximately one-third of the patients had elevated C-reactive protein (> 5 mg/L). In the baseline MRI scans, active inflammatory changes in the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) were seen in 51.9% of the patients and structural changes in 72.1%. MRI spine scans showed active changes in 58.7% of the patients. Notably, active and/or structural changes of the spine without changes in the SIJ appeared in 20% of the patients, Ms. Käding said.

With regard to existing classification criteria, the researchers observed that 92% of the patients met the CASPAR (Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria for PsA, 73% met the ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria, while 66% of patients met both ASAS and CASPAR criteria.

The study will be the first to include longitudinal MRI scans of the whole spine and SIJ in addition to conventional radiographs, Ms. Käding said.

Better characterization should improve treatment

“Axial involvement in PsA might, on one hand, go unnoticed, but on the other hand, it could also be misdiagnosed in patients with degenerative spinal disease,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, one of the study coauthors, also of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in an interview.

“By comprehending the unique characteristics, progression, and treatment responses within the axial domain, rheumatologists can customize interventions and therapies to effectively manage the psoriatic disease,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“One of the most significant findings [of the current study] is the relatively high frequency of spinal involvement without sacroiliac joint” involvement, Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin and senior author of the study, said in an interview. “This finding holds importance as, in primary axial SpA, the disease typically originates in the sacroiliac joints. In contrast, in PsA, the scenario differs, which has implications for the diagnostic approach in clinical practice.”

“In individuals with PsA, spinal involvement can occur independently of sacroiliac joint [involvement]. As a result, imaging studies conducted on patients suspected of having axial PsA should encompass not only the sacroiliac joints but also the spine,” Dr. Poddubnyy explained. “It is important to note, however, that imaging findings such as bony spurs and bone marrow edema might be caused by degeneration or mechanical issues and, therefore, need to be interpreted with caution within the clinical context.”

The study was supported in part by an unrestricted research grant from Novartis. Dr. Poddubnyy and Dr. Proft disclosed receiving research grants and consultancy payments from Novartis and serving on speaker bureaus for the company.

Approximately 20% of adults with axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) show active or structural spinal changes without changes in the sacroiliac joint, based on imaging data from 106 individuals. 

Axial PsA has been historically grouped with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but it has received more attention in recent years as a condition potentially distinct from axSpA, Henriette Käding, an MD and PhD student in the department of gastroenterology, infectiology, and rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in her research presentation at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). She added that the debate persists as to whether these conditions are on the same spectrum or should be separated.

Data from previous studies suggest differences in genetic, clinical, radiographic, and prognostic characteristics between axial PsA and axSpA that may affect patients’ response to available treatments. However, there are relatively little data available on distinguishing imaging and clinical features, and there’s a lack of classification criteria for axial PsA, Ms. Käding said.

Ms. Käding and colleagues prospectively collected data from 106 patients with axial PsA between August 2019 and June 2023 and presented the baseline data of this longitudinal project at the GRAPPA annual meeting in Dublin. At baseline, the researchers conducted clinical assessments of the participants, along with blood sampling, stool samples, and imaging protocols that included MRI of the whole spine and sacroiliac joint (SIJ).

The mean age of the included patients was 44.5 years; 55.7% were female. Inflammatory back pain was present in most of the patients at baseline (78.4%), and 48.1% were positive for HLA-B27, a genetic risk factor for both axSpA and axial PsA. Approximately one-third of the patients had elevated C-reactive protein (> 5 mg/L). In the baseline MRI scans, active inflammatory changes in the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) were seen in 51.9% of the patients and structural changes in 72.1%. MRI spine scans showed active changes in 58.7% of the patients. Notably, active and/or structural changes of the spine without changes in the SIJ appeared in 20% of the patients, Ms. Käding said.

With regard to existing classification criteria, the researchers observed that 92% of the patients met the CASPAR (Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria for PsA, 73% met the ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria, while 66% of patients met both ASAS and CASPAR criteria.

The study will be the first to include longitudinal MRI scans of the whole spine and SIJ in addition to conventional radiographs, Ms. Käding said.

Better characterization should improve treatment

“Axial involvement in PsA might, on one hand, go unnoticed, but on the other hand, it could also be misdiagnosed in patients with degenerative spinal disease,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, one of the study coauthors, also of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in an interview.

“By comprehending the unique characteristics, progression, and treatment responses within the axial domain, rheumatologists can customize interventions and therapies to effectively manage the psoriatic disease,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“One of the most significant findings [of the current study] is the relatively high frequency of spinal involvement without sacroiliac joint” involvement, Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin and senior author of the study, said in an interview. “This finding holds importance as, in primary axial SpA, the disease typically originates in the sacroiliac joints. In contrast, in PsA, the scenario differs, which has implications for the diagnostic approach in clinical practice.”

“In individuals with PsA, spinal involvement can occur independently of sacroiliac joint [involvement]. As a result, imaging studies conducted on patients suspected of having axial PsA should encompass not only the sacroiliac joints but also the spine,” Dr. Poddubnyy explained. “It is important to note, however, that imaging findings such as bony spurs and bone marrow edema might be caused by degeneration or mechanical issues and, therefore, need to be interpreted with caution within the clinical context.”

The study was supported in part by an unrestricted research grant from Novartis. Dr. Poddubnyy and Dr. Proft disclosed receiving research grants and consultancy payments from Novartis and serving on speaker bureaus for the company.

Despite claims by their makers, blue light glasses probably don’t reduce eyestrain for people who spend a lot of time looking at computer screens or their phones, a new study says. The glasses probably don’t improve wearers’ sleep habits either, according to the study. 

Blue light glasses are usually marketed as being able to filter out the potentially harmful effects of blue light from screens, such as eyestrain, dry eye, and sleep problems. Interest in blue light glasses increased during the COVID-19 pandemic as more people stayed home and looked at their computers and phones. They’re often prescribed by optometrists.

The study, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, looked at data collected from 17 clinical trials in six countries that recruited 619 people. 

“We found there may be no short-term advantages with using blue light–filtering spectacle lenses to reduce visual fatigue associated with computer use, compared to non–blue-light–filtering lenses,” senior author Laura Downie, PhD, an associate professor of optometry and vision sciences at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.

“It is also currently unclear whether these lenses affect vision quality or sleep-related outcomes, and no conclusions could be drawn about any potential effects on retinal health in the longer term. People should be aware of these findings when deciding whether to purchase these spectacles.”

Researchers noted that one reason the glasses don’t help is that the amount of blue light received from computer screens and other artificial sources is only about a thousandth of what people get from natural daylight. On top of that, blue light lenses usually filter out only about 10%-25% of blue light.

“Our findings do not support the prescription of blue light–filtering lenses to the general population,” Dr. Downie said. 

Eye experts say people can cut down on eyestrain by simply cutting down on the amount of time they look at screens, or by taking regular breaks. To improve sleep, stop looking at screens for a few hours before bedtime.

The researchers noted limitations in their analysis. None of the studies investigated contrast sensitivity, color discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction.

Also, the length of the different studies varied. More studies of the use of blue light–filtering glasses is needed, the researchers said.

The study received funding from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, the Public Health Agency in the United Kingdom, and Queen’s University Belfast. Two coauthors reported receiving payment from the College of Optometrists.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Despite claims by their makers, blue light glasses probably don’t reduce eyestrain for people who spend a lot of time looking at computer screens or their phones, a new study says. The glasses probably don’t improve wearers’ sleep habits either, according to the study. 

Blue light glasses are usually marketed as being able to filter out the potentially harmful effects of blue light from screens, such as eyestrain, dry eye, and sleep problems. Interest in blue light glasses increased during the COVID-19 pandemic as more people stayed home and looked at their computers and phones. They’re often prescribed by optometrists.

The study, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, looked at data collected from 17 clinical trials in six countries that recruited 619 people. 

“We found there may be no short-term advantages with using blue light–filtering spectacle lenses to reduce visual fatigue associated with computer use, compared to non–blue-light–filtering lenses,” senior author Laura Downie, PhD, an associate professor of optometry and vision sciences at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.

“It is also currently unclear whether these lenses affect vision quality or sleep-related outcomes, and no conclusions could be drawn about any potential effects on retinal health in the longer term. People should be aware of these findings when deciding whether to purchase these spectacles.”

Researchers noted that one reason the glasses don’t help is that the amount of blue light received from computer screens and other artificial sources is only about a thousandth of what people get from natural daylight. On top of that, blue light lenses usually filter out only about 10%-25% of blue light.

“Our findings do not support the prescription of blue light–filtering lenses to the general population,” Dr. Downie said. 

Eye experts say people can cut down on eyestrain by simply cutting down on the amount of time they look at screens, or by taking regular breaks. To improve sleep, stop looking at screens for a few hours before bedtime.

The researchers noted limitations in their analysis. None of the studies investigated contrast sensitivity, color discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction.

Also, the length of the different studies varied. More studies of the use of blue light–filtering glasses is needed, the researchers said.

The study received funding from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, the Public Health Agency in the United Kingdom, and Queen’s University Belfast. Two coauthors reported receiving payment from the College of Optometrists.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Despite claims by their makers, blue light glasses probably don’t reduce eyestrain for people who spend a lot of time looking at computer screens or their phones, a new study says. The glasses probably don’t improve wearers’ sleep habits either, according to the study. 

Blue light glasses are usually marketed as being able to filter out the potentially harmful effects of blue light from screens, such as eyestrain, dry eye, and sleep problems. Interest in blue light glasses increased during the COVID-19 pandemic as more people stayed home and looked at their computers and phones. They’re often prescribed by optometrists.

The study, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, looked at data collected from 17 clinical trials in six countries that recruited 619 people. 

“We found there may be no short-term advantages with using blue light–filtering spectacle lenses to reduce visual fatigue associated with computer use, compared to non–blue-light–filtering lenses,” senior author Laura Downie, PhD, an associate professor of optometry and vision sciences at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.

“It is also currently unclear whether these lenses affect vision quality or sleep-related outcomes, and no conclusions could be drawn about any potential effects on retinal health in the longer term. People should be aware of these findings when deciding whether to purchase these spectacles.”

Researchers noted that one reason the glasses don’t help is that the amount of blue light received from computer screens and other artificial sources is only about a thousandth of what people get from natural daylight. On top of that, blue light lenses usually filter out only about 10%-25% of blue light.

“Our findings do not support the prescription of blue light–filtering lenses to the general population,” Dr. Downie said. 

Eye experts say people can cut down on eyestrain by simply cutting down on the amount of time they look at screens, or by taking regular breaks. To improve sleep, stop looking at screens for a few hours before bedtime.

The researchers noted limitations in their analysis. None of the studies investigated contrast sensitivity, color discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction.

Also, the length of the different studies varied. More studies of the use of blue light–filtering glasses is needed, the researchers said.

The study received funding from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, the Public Health Agency in the United Kingdom, and Queen’s University Belfast. Two coauthors reported receiving payment from the College of Optometrists.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Measuring four circulating biomarkers through a simple blood test in patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease may predict their risk of heart and kidney disease progression, suggests an analysis of the CREDENCE trial.

The research, published online in the journal Circulation, also revealed that patients treated with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet) had lower levels of the biomarkers after 1 year compared with those given placebo.

Examination of biomarker levels in more than 2,600 patients from CREDENCE showed that high baseline concentrations of the individual biomarkers were able to predict the future risk for a composite endpoint of renal and heart outcomes.

The combination of all four biomarkers into a single panel revealed that patients with the highest levels were more than four times as likely to experience the composite endpoint than were those with the lowest levels.

As two of the biomarkers used in the study have yet to have established prognostic thresholds, the results remain exploratory.

Lead author James L. Januzzi, MD, director of the Heart Failure and Biomarker Trials at the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, said that further study will help refine the predictive value of the panel.

“Given that the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the American Diabetes Association now all recommend measurement of biomarkers to enhance the ability to predict risk in persons with type 2 diabetes, these results may considerably extend the reach of biomarker-based testing, refining accuracy even further,” he said in a press release.

In an interview, Dr. Januzzi said that “three out of the four biomarkers are already clinically and commercially available,” while the fourth, for insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), is “on the near horizon.”

He stressed that the “future for multiple biomarker testing, however, will be less about ordering each individual test, and ultimately will revolve around panels of blood work that are ordered as a single test.”

Dr. Januzzi added that “rather than using the rather primitive approach that we took” of looking at the individual biomarkers in adjusted models, the next stage “will be to utilize algorithms to combine the results into a single value.

“A clinician will not have to struggle with looking at individual results but will just receive one aggregated test result that informs them whether a patient is at low, medium or higher risk,” he explained.

However, this will require determining the relative importance of each biomarker and weighting them in the final model.

Consequently, the current results “set the foundation for identifying some very powerful individual tests that may ultimately, in aggregate, help us to help our patients with diabetes avoid a major complication,” Dr. Januzzi said.

By revealing that some individuals with both type 2 diabetes and kidney disease are at higher risk than others, he also hopes the findings can be leveraged to treat patients with “varying degrees of intensity with proven therapies, including weight loss, dietary adjustment, and pharmacologic intervention.”

Dr. Januzzi added: “Diabetes affects a dramatic, and growing, percentage of our population, and this type of personalized strategy to reduce the major complications of this rather common disease is an important step forward.”

The authors noted that there is a “bidirectional relationship” between cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), such that either diagnosis may increase the risk of, or exacerbate, the other. 

Individuals with type 2 diabetes and CKD albuminuria, they added, are at particularly high risk for major cardiovascular events, and studies have shown that several circulating cardiorenal stress biomarkers may predict the onset and progression of CKD in type 2 diabetes, as well as predict cardiovascular events.
 

Several biomarkers associated with myocardial stress and necrosis

The recent CANVAS trial revealed that, among individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without CKD, several biomarkers were associated with myocardial stress and necrosis, and renal tubular injury, predicting the progression of CKD with albuminuria, and the risk for heart failure events.

Taking inspiration from those findings, the current researchers studied a panel of similar cardiac and renal biomarkers among participants from the CREDENCE trial, for which 4,401 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD at high risk of progression were randomly assigned to canagliflozin or placebo.

The current analysis involved 2,627 participants who had baseline plasma samples available for analysis of four circulating biomarkers: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), and IGFBP7.

Among those, 2,385 participants also had year 1 plasma samples available for analysis, while year 3 plasma samples were available for 895 individuals.

The results showed that, in general, median baseline concentrations of each biomarker in both treatment groups were elevated compared with healthy reference populations.

Baseline log-transformed concentrations of each biomarker were also strongly predictive of cardiac and renal outcomes, including heart failure and progression of CKD.

For example, each unit increase in baseline NT-proBNP concentrations was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.35 for the primary composite endpoint of end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine levels, renal death, or cardiovascular disease (P < .001).

For each unit increase in hs-cTnT levels, the hazard ratio for the primary composite was 1.73 (P < .001), for GDF-15 it was 1.84 (P < .0001), and for IGFBP7 the hazard ratio was 3.14 (P < .001).

Combining the four biomarkers into a single multimarker panel revealed that, compared with individuals with a low-risk score, those with a high-risk score had a hazard ratio for the primary outcome of 4.01, whereas those with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.39 (P < .001 for both).

For the individual outcome of heart failure hospitalization, the effect was even greater. A high-risk score was associated with a hazard ratio vs. a low-risk score of 6.04 (P < .001), whereas patients with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.45 (P = .04).

The researchers also reported that, between baseline and year 1, concentrations of all four biomarkers rose from 6% to 29% in the placebo group, but from 3% to just 10% in those treated with canagliflozin.

“It was reassuring to discover that canagliflozin helped reduce risks the most in people with the highest chances for complications,” said Dr. Januzzi.

The CREDENCE trial and the current analysis were funded by Janssen Research & Development LLC. NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, GDF-15, and IGFBP7 reagents were provided by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi is funded in part by the Hutter Family Professorship. Dr. Januzzi declared relationships with Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Jana Care, Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, HeartFlow, Innolife, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, Abbott, AbbVie, CVRx, Intercept, and Takeda.


 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Measuring four circulating biomarkers through a simple blood test in patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease may predict their risk of heart and kidney disease progression, suggests an analysis of the CREDENCE trial.

The research, published online in the journal Circulation, also revealed that patients treated with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet) had lower levels of the biomarkers after 1 year compared with those given placebo.

Examination of biomarker levels in more than 2,600 patients from CREDENCE showed that high baseline concentrations of the individual biomarkers were able to predict the future risk for a composite endpoint of renal and heart outcomes.

The combination of all four biomarkers into a single panel revealed that patients with the highest levels were more than four times as likely to experience the composite endpoint than were those with the lowest levels.

As two of the biomarkers used in the study have yet to have established prognostic thresholds, the results remain exploratory.

Lead author James L. Januzzi, MD, director of the Heart Failure and Biomarker Trials at the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, said that further study will help refine the predictive value of the panel.

“Given that the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the American Diabetes Association now all recommend measurement of biomarkers to enhance the ability to predict risk in persons with type 2 diabetes, these results may considerably extend the reach of biomarker-based testing, refining accuracy even further,” he said in a press release.

In an interview, Dr. Januzzi said that “three out of the four biomarkers are already clinically and commercially available,” while the fourth, for insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), is “on the near horizon.”

He stressed that the “future for multiple biomarker testing, however, will be less about ordering each individual test, and ultimately will revolve around panels of blood work that are ordered as a single test.”

Dr. Januzzi added that “rather than using the rather primitive approach that we took” of looking at the individual biomarkers in adjusted models, the next stage “will be to utilize algorithms to combine the results into a single value.

“A clinician will not have to struggle with looking at individual results but will just receive one aggregated test result that informs them whether a patient is at low, medium or higher risk,” he explained.

However, this will require determining the relative importance of each biomarker and weighting them in the final model.

Consequently, the current results “set the foundation for identifying some very powerful individual tests that may ultimately, in aggregate, help us to help our patients with diabetes avoid a major complication,” Dr. Januzzi said.

By revealing that some individuals with both type 2 diabetes and kidney disease are at higher risk than others, he also hopes the findings can be leveraged to treat patients with “varying degrees of intensity with proven therapies, including weight loss, dietary adjustment, and pharmacologic intervention.”

Dr. Januzzi added: “Diabetes affects a dramatic, and growing, percentage of our population, and this type of personalized strategy to reduce the major complications of this rather common disease is an important step forward.”

The authors noted that there is a “bidirectional relationship” between cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), such that either diagnosis may increase the risk of, or exacerbate, the other. 

Individuals with type 2 diabetes and CKD albuminuria, they added, are at particularly high risk for major cardiovascular events, and studies have shown that several circulating cardiorenal stress biomarkers may predict the onset and progression of CKD in type 2 diabetes, as well as predict cardiovascular events.
 

Several biomarkers associated with myocardial stress and necrosis

The recent CANVAS trial revealed that, among individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without CKD, several biomarkers were associated with myocardial stress and necrosis, and renal tubular injury, predicting the progression of CKD with albuminuria, and the risk for heart failure events.

Taking inspiration from those findings, the current researchers studied a panel of similar cardiac and renal biomarkers among participants from the CREDENCE trial, for which 4,401 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD at high risk of progression were randomly assigned to canagliflozin or placebo.

The current analysis involved 2,627 participants who had baseline plasma samples available for analysis of four circulating biomarkers: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), and IGFBP7.

Among those, 2,385 participants also had year 1 plasma samples available for analysis, while year 3 plasma samples were available for 895 individuals.

The results showed that, in general, median baseline concentrations of each biomarker in both treatment groups were elevated compared with healthy reference populations.

Baseline log-transformed concentrations of each biomarker were also strongly predictive of cardiac and renal outcomes, including heart failure and progression of CKD.

For example, each unit increase in baseline NT-proBNP concentrations was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.35 for the primary composite endpoint of end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine levels, renal death, or cardiovascular disease (P < .001).

For each unit increase in hs-cTnT levels, the hazard ratio for the primary composite was 1.73 (P < .001), for GDF-15 it was 1.84 (P < .0001), and for IGFBP7 the hazard ratio was 3.14 (P < .001).

Combining the four biomarkers into a single multimarker panel revealed that, compared with individuals with a low-risk score, those with a high-risk score had a hazard ratio for the primary outcome of 4.01, whereas those with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.39 (P < .001 for both).

For the individual outcome of heart failure hospitalization, the effect was even greater. A high-risk score was associated with a hazard ratio vs. a low-risk score of 6.04 (P < .001), whereas patients with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.45 (P = .04).

The researchers also reported that, between baseline and year 1, concentrations of all four biomarkers rose from 6% to 29% in the placebo group, but from 3% to just 10% in those treated with canagliflozin.

“It was reassuring to discover that canagliflozin helped reduce risks the most in people with the highest chances for complications,” said Dr. Januzzi.

The CREDENCE trial and the current analysis were funded by Janssen Research & Development LLC. NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, GDF-15, and IGFBP7 reagents were provided by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi is funded in part by the Hutter Family Professorship. Dr. Januzzi declared relationships with Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Jana Care, Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, HeartFlow, Innolife, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, Abbott, AbbVie, CVRx, Intercept, and Takeda.


 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Measuring four circulating biomarkers through a simple blood test in patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease may predict their risk of heart and kidney disease progression, suggests an analysis of the CREDENCE trial.

The research, published online in the journal Circulation, also revealed that patients treated with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet) had lower levels of the biomarkers after 1 year compared with those given placebo.

Examination of biomarker levels in more than 2,600 patients from CREDENCE showed that high baseline concentrations of the individual biomarkers were able to predict the future risk for a composite endpoint of renal and heart outcomes.

The combination of all four biomarkers into a single panel revealed that patients with the highest levels were more than four times as likely to experience the composite endpoint than were those with the lowest levels.

As two of the biomarkers used in the study have yet to have established prognostic thresholds, the results remain exploratory.

Lead author James L. Januzzi, MD, director of the Heart Failure and Biomarker Trials at the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, said that further study will help refine the predictive value of the panel.

“Given that the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the American Diabetes Association now all recommend measurement of biomarkers to enhance the ability to predict risk in persons with type 2 diabetes, these results may considerably extend the reach of biomarker-based testing, refining accuracy even further,” he said in a press release.

In an interview, Dr. Januzzi said that “three out of the four biomarkers are already clinically and commercially available,” while the fourth, for insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), is “on the near horizon.”

He stressed that the “future for multiple biomarker testing, however, will be less about ordering each individual test, and ultimately will revolve around panels of blood work that are ordered as a single test.”

Dr. Januzzi added that “rather than using the rather primitive approach that we took” of looking at the individual biomarkers in adjusted models, the next stage “will be to utilize algorithms to combine the results into a single value.

“A clinician will not have to struggle with looking at individual results but will just receive one aggregated test result that informs them whether a patient is at low, medium or higher risk,” he explained.

However, this will require determining the relative importance of each biomarker and weighting them in the final model.

Consequently, the current results “set the foundation for identifying some very powerful individual tests that may ultimately, in aggregate, help us to help our patients with diabetes avoid a major complication,” Dr. Januzzi said.

By revealing that some individuals with both type 2 diabetes and kidney disease are at higher risk than others, he also hopes the findings can be leveraged to treat patients with “varying degrees of intensity with proven therapies, including weight loss, dietary adjustment, and pharmacologic intervention.”

Dr. Januzzi added: “Diabetes affects a dramatic, and growing, percentage of our population, and this type of personalized strategy to reduce the major complications of this rather common disease is an important step forward.”

The authors noted that there is a “bidirectional relationship” between cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), such that either diagnosis may increase the risk of, or exacerbate, the other. 

Individuals with type 2 diabetes and CKD albuminuria, they added, are at particularly high risk for major cardiovascular events, and studies have shown that several circulating cardiorenal stress biomarkers may predict the onset and progression of CKD in type 2 diabetes, as well as predict cardiovascular events.
 

Several biomarkers associated with myocardial stress and necrosis

The recent CANVAS trial revealed that, among individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without CKD, several biomarkers were associated with myocardial stress and necrosis, and renal tubular injury, predicting the progression of CKD with albuminuria, and the risk for heart failure events.

Taking inspiration from those findings, the current researchers studied a panel of similar cardiac and renal biomarkers among participants from the CREDENCE trial, for which 4,401 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD at high risk of progression were randomly assigned to canagliflozin or placebo.

The current analysis involved 2,627 participants who had baseline plasma samples available for analysis of four circulating biomarkers: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), and IGFBP7.

Among those, 2,385 participants also had year 1 plasma samples available for analysis, while year 3 plasma samples were available for 895 individuals.

The results showed that, in general, median baseline concentrations of each biomarker in both treatment groups were elevated compared with healthy reference populations.

Baseline log-transformed concentrations of each biomarker were also strongly predictive of cardiac and renal outcomes, including heart failure and progression of CKD.

For example, each unit increase in baseline NT-proBNP concentrations was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.35 for the primary composite endpoint of end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine levels, renal death, or cardiovascular disease (P < .001).

For each unit increase in hs-cTnT levels, the hazard ratio for the primary composite was 1.73 (P < .001), for GDF-15 it was 1.84 (P < .0001), and for IGFBP7 the hazard ratio was 3.14 (P < .001).

Combining the four biomarkers into a single multimarker panel revealed that, compared with individuals with a low-risk score, those with a high-risk score had a hazard ratio for the primary outcome of 4.01, whereas those with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.39 (P < .001 for both).

For the individual outcome of heart failure hospitalization, the effect was even greater. A high-risk score was associated with a hazard ratio vs. a low-risk score of 6.04 (P < .001), whereas patients with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.45 (P = .04).

The researchers also reported that, between baseline and year 1, concentrations of all four biomarkers rose from 6% to 29% in the placebo group, but from 3% to just 10% in those treated with canagliflozin.

“It was reassuring to discover that canagliflozin helped reduce risks the most in people with the highest chances for complications,” said Dr. Januzzi.

The CREDENCE trial and the current analysis were funded by Janssen Research & Development LLC. NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, GDF-15, and IGFBP7 reagents were provided by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi is funded in part by the Hutter Family Professorship. Dr. Januzzi declared relationships with Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Jana Care, Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, HeartFlow, Innolife, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, Abbott, AbbVie, CVRx, Intercept, and Takeda.


 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with female pattern hair loss taking low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for at least 4 months, minimal changes from baseline were observed in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate, results from a small retrospective analysis showed.

“Additionally, few patients experienced hair loss progression while slightly over a third experienced hair regrowth,” the study’s first author, Reese Imhof, MD, a third-year resident in the department of dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The results were published online in JAAD International.

At low doses, oral minoxidil, approved as an antihypertensive over 40 years ago, has become an increasingly popular treatment for hair loss, particularly since an article about its use for hair loss was published in the New York Times in August 2022. (Oral minoxidil is not approved for treating alopecia, and is used off label for this purpose.)

To evaluate the effects of LDOM in female patients with female pattern hair loss, Dr. Imhof, along with colleagues Beija Villalpando, MD, of the department of medicine and Rochelle R. Torgerson, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, reviewed the records of 25 adult women who were evaluated for female pattern hair loss at the Mayo Clinic over a 5-year period that ended on Nov. 27, 2022. Previous studies have looked at the cardiovascular effects of treatment with oral minoxidil and impact on BP in men, but “few studies have reported on female patients receiving LDOM as monotherapy for female pattern hair loss,” the authors noted.

The mean age of the women in their study was 61 years, and they took LDOM for a mean of 6.2 months. Slightly more than half (52%) took a dose of 1.25 mg daily, while 40% took 2.5 mg daily and 8% took 0.625 mg daily.

Of the 25 patients, 10 (40%) had previously tried topical minoxidil but had discontinued it because of local side effects or challenges with adherence. Also, three patients (12%) had previously tried finasteride and spironolactone but discontinued those medications because of adverse side effects.

The researchers noted disease improvement and hair regrowth was observed in nine patients who were treated with LDOM (36%), while three patients (12%) had “unaltered disease progression.” Adverse side effects observed in the cohort included four patients with facial hypertrichosis (16%) and one patient with fluid retention/lower limb edema (4%).

The patients who developed hypertrichosis did not discontinue LDOM, but the patient who developed edema did stop treatment.

At baseline, systolic BP (SBP) ranged from 107-161 mm Hg, diastolic BP (DBP) ranged from 58-88 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 54-114 beats per minute. Post treatment, SBP ranged from 102-152 mm Hg, DBP ranged from 63-90 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 56 to 105 bpm. “It was surprising how little ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate changed after an average of 6 months of treatment,” Dr. Imhof said in an interview. “On average, SBP decreased by 2.8 mm HG while DBP decreased by 1.4 mm Hg. Heart rate increased an average of 4.4 beats per minute.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and lack of inclusion of patients who were being treated for hypertension with concomitant antihypertensive medications. “Some unique aspects of our study are that we focused on women, and we had a slightly older cohort than prior studies (61 years old on average) as well as exposure to higher doses of LDOM, with most patients on either 1.25 mg daily or 2.5 mg daily,” Dr. Imhof said.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures, and there was no funding source for the study.

Among patients with female pattern hair loss taking low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for at least 4 months, minimal changes from baseline were observed in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate, results from a small retrospective analysis showed.

“Additionally, few patients experienced hair loss progression while slightly over a third experienced hair regrowth,” the study’s first author, Reese Imhof, MD, a third-year resident in the department of dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The results were published online in JAAD International.

At low doses, oral minoxidil, approved as an antihypertensive over 40 years ago, has become an increasingly popular treatment for hair loss, particularly since an article about its use for hair loss was published in the New York Times in August 2022. (Oral minoxidil is not approved for treating alopecia, and is used off label for this purpose.)

To evaluate the effects of LDOM in female patients with female pattern hair loss, Dr. Imhof, along with colleagues Beija Villalpando, MD, of the department of medicine and Rochelle R. Torgerson, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, reviewed the records of 25 adult women who were evaluated for female pattern hair loss at the Mayo Clinic over a 5-year period that ended on Nov. 27, 2022. Previous studies have looked at the cardiovascular effects of treatment with oral minoxidil and impact on BP in men, but “few studies have reported on female patients receiving LDOM as monotherapy for female pattern hair loss,” the authors noted.

The mean age of the women in their study was 61 years, and they took LDOM for a mean of 6.2 months. Slightly more than half (52%) took a dose of 1.25 mg daily, while 40% took 2.5 mg daily and 8% took 0.625 mg daily.

Of the 25 patients, 10 (40%) had previously tried topical minoxidil but had discontinued it because of local side effects or challenges with adherence. Also, three patients (12%) had previously tried finasteride and spironolactone but discontinued those medications because of adverse side effects.

The researchers noted disease improvement and hair regrowth was observed in nine patients who were treated with LDOM (36%), while three patients (12%) had “unaltered disease progression.” Adverse side effects observed in the cohort included four patients with facial hypertrichosis (16%) and one patient with fluid retention/lower limb edema (4%).

The patients who developed hypertrichosis did not discontinue LDOM, but the patient who developed edema did stop treatment.

At baseline, systolic BP (SBP) ranged from 107-161 mm Hg, diastolic BP (DBP) ranged from 58-88 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 54-114 beats per minute. Post treatment, SBP ranged from 102-152 mm Hg, DBP ranged from 63-90 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 56 to 105 bpm. “It was surprising how little ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate changed after an average of 6 months of treatment,” Dr. Imhof said in an interview. “On average, SBP decreased by 2.8 mm HG while DBP decreased by 1.4 mm Hg. Heart rate increased an average of 4.4 beats per minute.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and lack of inclusion of patients who were being treated for hypertension with concomitant antihypertensive medications. “Some unique aspects of our study are that we focused on women, and we had a slightly older cohort than prior studies (61 years old on average) as well as exposure to higher doses of LDOM, with most patients on either 1.25 mg daily or 2.5 mg daily,” Dr. Imhof said.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures, and there was no funding source for the study.

Among patients with female pattern hair loss taking low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for at least 4 months, minimal changes from baseline were observed in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate, results from a small retrospective analysis showed.

“Additionally, few patients experienced hair loss progression while slightly over a third experienced hair regrowth,” the study’s first author, Reese Imhof, MD, a third-year resident in the department of dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The results were published online in JAAD International.

At low doses, oral minoxidil, approved as an antihypertensive over 40 years ago, has become an increasingly popular treatment for hair loss, particularly since an article about its use for hair loss was published in the New York Times in August 2022. (Oral minoxidil is not approved for treating alopecia, and is used off label for this purpose.)

To evaluate the effects of LDOM in female patients with female pattern hair loss, Dr. Imhof, along with colleagues Beija Villalpando, MD, of the department of medicine and Rochelle R. Torgerson, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, reviewed the records of 25 adult women who were evaluated for female pattern hair loss at the Mayo Clinic over a 5-year period that ended on Nov. 27, 2022. Previous studies have looked at the cardiovascular effects of treatment with oral minoxidil and impact on BP in men, but “few studies have reported on female patients receiving LDOM as monotherapy for female pattern hair loss,” the authors noted.

The mean age of the women in their study was 61 years, and they took LDOM for a mean of 6.2 months. Slightly more than half (52%) took a dose of 1.25 mg daily, while 40% took 2.5 mg daily and 8% took 0.625 mg daily.

Of the 25 patients, 10 (40%) had previously tried topical minoxidil but had discontinued it because of local side effects or challenges with adherence. Also, three patients (12%) had previously tried finasteride and spironolactone but discontinued those medications because of adverse side effects.

The researchers noted disease improvement and hair regrowth was observed in nine patients who were treated with LDOM (36%), while three patients (12%) had “unaltered disease progression.” Adverse side effects observed in the cohort included four patients with facial hypertrichosis (16%) and one patient with fluid retention/lower limb edema (4%).

The patients who developed hypertrichosis did not discontinue LDOM, but the patient who developed edema did stop treatment.

At baseline, systolic BP (SBP) ranged from 107-161 mm Hg, diastolic BP (DBP) ranged from 58-88 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 54-114 beats per minute. Post treatment, SBP ranged from 102-152 mm Hg, DBP ranged from 63-90 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 56 to 105 bpm. “It was surprising how little ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate changed after an average of 6 months of treatment,” Dr. Imhof said in an interview. “On average, SBP decreased by 2.8 mm HG while DBP decreased by 1.4 mm Hg. Heart rate increased an average of 4.4 beats per minute.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and lack of inclusion of patients who were being treated for hypertension with concomitant antihypertensive medications. “Some unique aspects of our study are that we focused on women, and we had a slightly older cohort than prior studies (61 years old on average) as well as exposure to higher doses of LDOM, with most patients on either 1.25 mg daily or 2.5 mg daily,” Dr. Imhof said.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures, and there was no funding source for the study.