MDedge Rheumatology

Several environmental risk factors are associated with the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with smoking having one of the strongest associations. Exposure to airborne toxins has also been associated with development of anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Beidelschies and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to examine a potential interaction between smoking and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) affecting the development of RA. Stored blood and urine samples of survey respondents were examined, and levels of PAH as well as other toxicants were measured. Of nearly 22,000 participants, about 1400 of whom reported a diagnosis of RA, toxicants were measured in about 7000. Higher levels of PAH and phthalate metabolites were more strongly associated with development of RA. Because cigarettes are a source of PAH, the authors postulated that PAH mediated the impact of smoking on development of RA, a plausible explanation given that smoking was not associated with RA after adjustment for PAH levels. However, given the cross-sectional design, causality cannot be determined.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have been found in several surveillance studies to be associated with an increased risk for cancer and cardiovascular events. Westermann and colleagues performed an observational cohort study using Danish nationwide registries to evaluate cancer risk (other than nonmelanomatous skin cancer) in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib or baricitinib. Among 875 patients treated with JAK inhibitors vs 4247 patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), cancer incidence rates were similar (14.4 vs 12.9 per 1000 patient-years, respectively). Interestingly, though cancer incidence rates increased in patients > 50 and those > 65 years of age, the effect was similar between patients treated with JAK inhibitors and bDMARD. The largest difference was seen in patients up to 1 year vs > 1 year of follow-up, with hazard ratios of 1.54 vs 1.07. These findings are somewhat reassuring in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance study, suggesting increased cancer and cardiovascular risk among older patients with RA. However, as with bDMARD, increased scrutiny may be warranted among patients > 65 years, especially in the first year of treatment.

Finally, regarding withdrawal of therapy, Curtis and colleagues performed a randomized controlled study of patients with RA on combination therapy with methotrexate and etanercept and evaluated factors associated with maintenance of remission. In this study, withdrawal of methotrexate and etanercept were compared: About 250 patients whose disease was in remission, on the basis of the Simplified Disease Activity Index, were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or combination therapy. Prior analyses of these data have shown that continuing etanercept monotherapy showed a benefit in maintaining remission compared with continuing methotrexate monotherapy. Several baseline characteristics, including higher patient global activity at baseline and rheumatoid factor seropositivity, were associated with a lower likelihood of maintaining remission or low disease activity. Interestingly, higher serum magnesium levels seemed to negatively affect maintenance of remission, though the mechanism for this finding is not clear. In general, however, this study did not add more information to prior work in terms of shedding light on which patients may be able to stop therapy.

Several environmental risk factors are associated with the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with smoking having one of the strongest associations. Exposure to airborne toxins has also been associated with development of anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Beidelschies and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to examine a potential interaction between smoking and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) affecting the development of RA. Stored blood and urine samples of survey respondents were examined, and levels of PAH as well as other toxicants were measured. Of nearly 22,000 participants, about 1400 of whom reported a diagnosis of RA, toxicants were measured in about 7000. Higher levels of PAH and phthalate metabolites were more strongly associated with development of RA. Because cigarettes are a source of PAH, the authors postulated that PAH mediated the impact of smoking on development of RA, a plausible explanation given that smoking was not associated with RA after adjustment for PAH levels. However, given the cross-sectional design, causality cannot be determined.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have been found in several surveillance studies to be associated with an increased risk for cancer and cardiovascular events. Westermann and colleagues performed an observational cohort study using Danish nationwide registries to evaluate cancer risk (other than nonmelanomatous skin cancer) in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib or baricitinib. Among 875 patients treated with JAK inhibitors vs 4247 patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), cancer incidence rates were similar (14.4 vs 12.9 per 1000 patient-years, respectively). Interestingly, though cancer incidence rates increased in patients > 50 and those > 65 years of age, the effect was similar between patients treated with JAK inhibitors and bDMARD. The largest difference was seen in patients up to 1 year vs > 1 year of follow-up, with hazard ratios of 1.54 vs 1.07. These findings are somewhat reassuring in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance study, suggesting increased cancer and cardiovascular risk among older patients with RA. However, as with bDMARD, increased scrutiny may be warranted among patients > 65 years, especially in the first year of treatment.

Finally, regarding withdrawal of therapy, Curtis and colleagues performed a randomized controlled study of patients with RA on combination therapy with methotrexate and etanercept and evaluated factors associated with maintenance of remission. In this study, withdrawal of methotrexate and etanercept were compared: About 250 patients whose disease was in remission, on the basis of the Simplified Disease Activity Index, were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or combination therapy. Prior analyses of these data have shown that continuing etanercept monotherapy showed a benefit in maintaining remission compared with continuing methotrexate monotherapy. Several baseline characteristics, including higher patient global activity at baseline and rheumatoid factor seropositivity, were associated with a lower likelihood of maintaining remission or low disease activity. Interestingly, higher serum magnesium levels seemed to negatively affect maintenance of remission, though the mechanism for this finding is not clear. In general, however, this study did not add more information to prior work in terms of shedding light on which patients may be able to stop therapy.

Several environmental risk factors are associated with the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with smoking having one of the strongest associations. Exposure to airborne toxins has also been associated with development of anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Beidelschies and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to examine a potential interaction between smoking and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) affecting the development of RA. Stored blood and urine samples of survey respondents were examined, and levels of PAH as well as other toxicants were measured. Of nearly 22,000 participants, about 1400 of whom reported a diagnosis of RA, toxicants were measured in about 7000. Higher levels of PAH and phthalate metabolites were more strongly associated with development of RA. Because cigarettes are a source of PAH, the authors postulated that PAH mediated the impact of smoking on development of RA, a plausible explanation given that smoking was not associated with RA after adjustment for PAH levels. However, given the cross-sectional design, causality cannot be determined.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have been found in several surveillance studies to be associated with an increased risk for cancer and cardiovascular events. Westermann and colleagues performed an observational cohort study using Danish nationwide registries to evaluate cancer risk (other than nonmelanomatous skin cancer) in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib or baricitinib. Among 875 patients treated with JAK inhibitors vs 4247 patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), cancer incidence rates were similar (14.4 vs 12.9 per 1000 patient-years, respectively). Interestingly, though cancer incidence rates increased in patients > 50 and those > 65 years of age, the effect was similar between patients treated with JAK inhibitors and bDMARD. The largest difference was seen in patients up to 1 year vs > 1 year of follow-up, with hazard ratios of 1.54 vs 1.07. These findings are somewhat reassuring in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance study, suggesting increased cancer and cardiovascular risk among older patients with RA. However, as with bDMARD, increased scrutiny may be warranted among patients > 65 years, especially in the first year of treatment.

Finally, regarding withdrawal of therapy, Curtis and colleagues performed a randomized controlled study of patients with RA on combination therapy with methotrexate and etanercept and evaluated factors associated with maintenance of remission. In this study, withdrawal of methotrexate and etanercept were compared: About 250 patients whose disease was in remission, on the basis of the Simplified Disease Activity Index, were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or combination therapy. Prior analyses of these data have shown that continuing etanercept monotherapy showed a benefit in maintaining remission compared with continuing methotrexate monotherapy. Several baseline characteristics, including higher patient global activity at baseline and rheumatoid factor seropositivity, were associated with a lower likelihood of maintaining remission or low disease activity. Interestingly, higher serum magnesium levels seemed to negatively affect maintenance of remission, though the mechanism for this finding is not clear. In general, however, this study did not add more information to prior work in terms of shedding light on which patients may be able to stop therapy.

Treatment of chronic back pain remains a challenge for primary care physicians, and a new Cochrane Review confirms previous studies suggesting that analgesics and antidepressants fall short in terms of relief.

Data from another Cochrane Review support the value of exercise for chronic low back pain, although it is often underused, and the Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of a spinal cord stimulation device for chronic back pain opens the door for another alternative.

Regardless of treatment type, however, patients report that empathy and clear communication from their doctors go a long way in their satisfaction with pain management, according to another recent study.
 

Exercise helps when patients adhere

The objective of the Cochrane Review on “Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain” was to determine whether exercise improves pain and functioning for people with chronic low back pain, compared with no treatment, usual care, or other common treatments, corresponding author Jill Hayden, PhD, of Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., said in an interview.

When back pain is chronic, it is expensive in terms of health care costs and lost work hours, said Dr. Hayden. “Exercise is promoted in many guidelines and is often recommended for, and used by, people with chronic low back pain.” However, “systematic reviews have found only small treatment effects, with considerable variation across individual trials.”

The 2021 review is one of the largest in the Cochrane Library, and included 249 trials and 24,486 study participants. However, Dr. Hayden said she had been disappointed by the methodological limitations of many of the trials. “The field is saturated with small exercise trials, many of which suffer from poor planning, conduct, and reporting due to limited resources.”

In the current review, “we found that exercise is likely to be effective for chronic low back pain. Overall, 3 months after the start of treatment, people receiving exercise treatment rated their pain an average of 15 points better on a scale of 0-100, and functional limitations were 7 points better, compared to people who had no treatment or usual care,” said Dr. Hayden.

Barriers to the use of exercise to treat pain may include fear of movement on the part of patients, she noted.

“Although our related network meta-analysis found some differences between specific types of exercise, we found all exercise types are more effective than minimal treatment,” she said. “People with chronic low back pain should be encouraged to do exercises that they enjoy and will do consistently to promote adherence.”
 

Limitations of medications

Both the safety and effectiveness of analgesics and antidepressants for pain in general and back pain in particular have come under scrutiny in recent research. A study published online in the British Medical Journal of patients with acute low back pain found that, although some medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, the quality of the studies was “low or very low confidence,” according to a Medscape report on the findings.

This conclusion was supported in a large-scale analysis of the safety and effectiveness of antidepressants in chronic pain conditions, including back pain.

A new Cochrane Review led by a team of researchers in the United Kingdom found inadequate evidence to support the effectiveness of most antidepressants used for chronic pain, including amitriptyline, fluoxetine, citalopram, paroxetine, sertraline, and duloxetine.

“While chronic pain remains one of the top causes of daily disability worldwide, clinicians’ choices at offering interventions are getting fewer, especially if they tend toward a medical model and want a pharmacological solution,” corresponding author Tamar Pincus, PhD, of the University of Southampton (England), said in an interview. “We now know that opioids harm patients, and the evidence for common analgesics such as paracetamol and ibuprofen, for some conditions such as back pain, suggest they are not effective and might cause harm. This leaves clinicians with few options, and the most common prescription, supported by guidelines, is antidepressants.”

The study found moderate evidence that duloxetine can reduce pain in the short term and improve physical activity and some evidence that milnacipran might also be effective, Dr. Pincus said. “For all other antidepressants, including the commonly prescribed amitriptyline, the evidence was poor. Of importance, the average length of trials was 10 weeks, so long-term effects for all antidepressants remain unknown, and side effects and adverse events were reported poorly, so we also don’t know if any antidepressants are harmful.”

The takeaway message for the management of back pain in particular? “If a clinician and a patient decide together that it would be a good idea to try an antidepressant to reduce pain, they should consider starting with duloxetine, the drug with supporting evidence,” she said.
 

Physician attitude matters

Antidepressants may not have much impact on chronic pain, but a physician’s empathy and support do, according to data from a registry study of more than 1,300 individuals.

Despite efforts and guidelines from multiple medical organizations to promote optimal pain management, “much remains unknown regarding how the patient-physician interaction affects the process of delivering medical care for chronic low back pain and, ultimately, patient satisfaction,” John C. Licciardone, DO, of the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Family Medicine.

Previous studies have examined the relationship between clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction, but data on patient satisfaction with medical care for chronic low back pain specifically are limited, they said.

The researchers reviewed data from a national pain registry of adults aged 21-79 years that included self-reported measures of physician communication and empathy, prescribing data for opioids, and outcomes data for pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life.

In a multivariate analysis, physician empathy and physician communication showed the strongest associations with patient satisfaction (P < .001).

The researchers found a negligible correlation between opioid prescription and perceived physician empathy and communication, “although current physician prescribing of opioids was also associated with patient satisfaction,” they wrote.

“Our findings pertaining to physician empathy are intriguing because they do not necessarily involve a therapeutic alliance with the patient based on collaborative communication or the expectation of a therapeutic effect via pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote .

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that prevented conclusions about cause and effect, the researchers noted. “It is possible that prior improvements in pain intensity, physical function, or [health-related quality of life] might have prompted participants to report more favorable ratings for physician empathy, physician communication, or patient satisfaction at registry enrollment.” However, the study supports the view that patients with low back pain in particular value physicians who validate their concerns and symptoms, and who make an effort to communicate treatment plans clearly.
 

Back pain patients continue to challenge primary care

“Back pain is a major issue in U.S. health care, in part because too many people have tough physical jobs or longstanding injuries that become chronic,” William Golden, MD, professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview.

“There are no magic bullets for a lot of back pain patients, so empathy and support are key drivers,” he noted. “Helping patients maximize functionality as opposed to seeking mythical cures is the stronger line of visit discussions, but that takes a bit of time and skill in interviewing.

“It is fairly well established that duloxetine is useful in pain management, especially when present with mood disorders, either primary or secondary to the back-related disability,” said Dr. Golden. “Greater dissemination of its utility is probably useful, as is the side effect profile of the drug as well,” given the “nasty discontinuation syndrome when the treatment is reduced or stopped.”

Looking ahead, “more research is needed about microsurgery, namely for whom and for what anatomic presentations,” said Dr. Golden. Other topics for further research include a better understanding about medical marijuana and pain management and its interactions and side effects with other opioids and muscle relaxants. “Polypharmacy is still an issue in this class of patient,” and many of these patients are frustrated and angry “so the psychosocial skills of the PCP can be greatly tested as well,” he said.
 

Empathy promotes patient adherence to treatment

The new opioid prescription guidelines have increased interest among clinicians in how to improve patient satisfaction with the care for back pain provided, Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “These studies address this concern and bring forth an important aspect of the physician-patient relationship, namely the human touch and empathy.”

“I have been a strong proponent of the trust and relationship between a physician and patient; displaying empathy and increased and transparent communication between the physician and the patient has always resulted in better relationships and better outcomes for patients, especially those dealing with chronic health concerns,” said Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wisc.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital, also in Antigo.

Potential barriers to effective pain management include beliefs and attitudes on the part of patients, Dr. Deep noted. “Physicians lacking adequate time to communicate effectively with the patient and describe nonopioid and nonsurgical interventions would be another potential barrier.” Other issues include the time and effort, as well as cost, associated with interventions such as physical therapy and other nondrug and nonsurgical interventions. Issues with family and social support and health literacy are also potential barriers to pain management.
 

Clinical takeaways

Low back pain is one of the most common reasons for a visit in primary care and can be “chronic and debilitating,” Grace Lin, MD, an internal medicine physician and primary care provider at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“One issue with the Cochrane Review on exercise is that the studies on exercise were heterogeneous, so it’s difficult to know whether there is a particular kind of exercise that would be most effective and should be recommended to patients,” she said.

Furthermore, she said, “there is a physical therapist shortage in the U.S. I practice in a major city with a large health care system, and it can still take months to get an appointment with a physical therapist.” Also, insurance coverage may limit which therapists a patient can see and how many visits they can have.

“On the clinician side, I think physicians need to be better informed about the evidence base for back pain treatment, namely that exercise is effective and that, long term, analgesics are not,” Dr. Lin said. “This might decrease overprescription of ineffective analgesics and encourage more education about and referrals to physical therapy.”

“Physicians should continue to educate patients that physical therapy is the first-line treatment for back pain and that pain medications are secondary,” she said. “I think that analgesics can be effective for the short term to get people to a point where they feel well enough to do physical therapy. Duloxetine also appears to be moderately effective for chronic low back pain, in part because it may also help address coexisting depression and anxiety,” but these options should be reserved for adjuncts to physical therapy for back pain.

The findings from the study on empathy and communication suggest that the main challenges to these behaviors are systemic, said Dr. Lin.

“Our health care system is not conducive to treating chronic back pain,” she said. Primary care visits that last for 15 or 20 minutes are not long enough to diagnose and counsel patients on such a complex problem as chronic low back pain. Since back pain is usually not the only issue the primary care physician is dealing with during that visit, this can lead to patients feeling like their doctor isn’t listening to them and doesn’t care about their pain.

“We need to better understand the mechanisms by which people develop chronic, debilitating back pain,” Dr. Lin said. “I think if we understood this better, more effective and targeted treatments, both pharmacological and nonpharmacological, could be developed.”

The Annals of Family Medicine study received no outside funding, and the researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The Cochrane Reviews was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s Health Technology Assessment program, and the authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Golden and Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serve on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Lin disclosed receiving research funding from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and the National Institutes of Health.

Treatment of chronic back pain remains a challenge for primary care physicians, and a new Cochrane Review confirms previous studies suggesting that analgesics and antidepressants fall short in terms of relief.

Data from another Cochrane Review support the value of exercise for chronic low back pain, although it is often underused, and the Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of a spinal cord stimulation device for chronic back pain opens the door for another alternative.

Regardless of treatment type, however, patients report that empathy and clear communication from their doctors go a long way in their satisfaction with pain management, according to another recent study.
 

Exercise helps when patients adhere

The objective of the Cochrane Review on “Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain” was to determine whether exercise improves pain and functioning for people with chronic low back pain, compared with no treatment, usual care, or other common treatments, corresponding author Jill Hayden, PhD, of Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., said in an interview.

When back pain is chronic, it is expensive in terms of health care costs and lost work hours, said Dr. Hayden. “Exercise is promoted in many guidelines and is often recommended for, and used by, people with chronic low back pain.” However, “systematic reviews have found only small treatment effects, with considerable variation across individual trials.”

The 2021 review is one of the largest in the Cochrane Library, and included 249 trials and 24,486 study participants. However, Dr. Hayden said she had been disappointed by the methodological limitations of many of the trials. “The field is saturated with small exercise trials, many of which suffer from poor planning, conduct, and reporting due to limited resources.”

In the current review, “we found that exercise is likely to be effective for chronic low back pain. Overall, 3 months after the start of treatment, people receiving exercise treatment rated their pain an average of 15 points better on a scale of 0-100, and functional limitations were 7 points better, compared to people who had no treatment or usual care,” said Dr. Hayden.

Barriers to the use of exercise to treat pain may include fear of movement on the part of patients, she noted.

“Although our related network meta-analysis found some differences between specific types of exercise, we found all exercise types are more effective than minimal treatment,” she said. “People with chronic low back pain should be encouraged to do exercises that they enjoy and will do consistently to promote adherence.”
 

Limitations of medications

Both the safety and effectiveness of analgesics and antidepressants for pain in general and back pain in particular have come under scrutiny in recent research. A study published online in the British Medical Journal of patients with acute low back pain found that, although some medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, the quality of the studies was “low or very low confidence,” according to a Medscape report on the findings.

This conclusion was supported in a large-scale analysis of the safety and effectiveness of antidepressants in chronic pain conditions, including back pain.

A new Cochrane Review led by a team of researchers in the United Kingdom found inadequate evidence to support the effectiveness of most antidepressants used for chronic pain, including amitriptyline, fluoxetine, citalopram, paroxetine, sertraline, and duloxetine.

“While chronic pain remains one of the top causes of daily disability worldwide, clinicians’ choices at offering interventions are getting fewer, especially if they tend toward a medical model and want a pharmacological solution,” corresponding author Tamar Pincus, PhD, of the University of Southampton (England), said in an interview. “We now know that opioids harm patients, and the evidence for common analgesics such as paracetamol and ibuprofen, for some conditions such as back pain, suggest they are not effective and might cause harm. This leaves clinicians with few options, and the most common prescription, supported by guidelines, is antidepressants.”

The study found moderate evidence that duloxetine can reduce pain in the short term and improve physical activity and some evidence that milnacipran might also be effective, Dr. Pincus said. “For all other antidepressants, including the commonly prescribed amitriptyline, the evidence was poor. Of importance, the average length of trials was 10 weeks, so long-term effects for all antidepressants remain unknown, and side effects and adverse events were reported poorly, so we also don’t know if any antidepressants are harmful.”

The takeaway message for the management of back pain in particular? “If a clinician and a patient decide together that it would be a good idea to try an antidepressant to reduce pain, they should consider starting with duloxetine, the drug with supporting evidence,” she said.
 

Physician attitude matters

Antidepressants may not have much impact on chronic pain, but a physician’s empathy and support do, according to data from a registry study of more than 1,300 individuals.

Despite efforts and guidelines from multiple medical organizations to promote optimal pain management, “much remains unknown regarding how the patient-physician interaction affects the process of delivering medical care for chronic low back pain and, ultimately, patient satisfaction,” John C. Licciardone, DO, of the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Family Medicine.

Previous studies have examined the relationship between clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction, but data on patient satisfaction with medical care for chronic low back pain specifically are limited, they said.

The researchers reviewed data from a national pain registry of adults aged 21-79 years that included self-reported measures of physician communication and empathy, prescribing data for opioids, and outcomes data for pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life.

In a multivariate analysis, physician empathy and physician communication showed the strongest associations with patient satisfaction (P < .001).

The researchers found a negligible correlation between opioid prescription and perceived physician empathy and communication, “although current physician prescribing of opioids was also associated with patient satisfaction,” they wrote.

“Our findings pertaining to physician empathy are intriguing because they do not necessarily involve a therapeutic alliance with the patient based on collaborative communication or the expectation of a therapeutic effect via pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote .

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that prevented conclusions about cause and effect, the researchers noted. “It is possible that prior improvements in pain intensity, physical function, or [health-related quality of life] might have prompted participants to report more favorable ratings for physician empathy, physician communication, or patient satisfaction at registry enrollment.” However, the study supports the view that patients with low back pain in particular value physicians who validate their concerns and symptoms, and who make an effort to communicate treatment plans clearly.
 

Back pain patients continue to challenge primary care

“Back pain is a major issue in U.S. health care, in part because too many people have tough physical jobs or longstanding injuries that become chronic,” William Golden, MD, professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview.

“There are no magic bullets for a lot of back pain patients, so empathy and support are key drivers,” he noted. “Helping patients maximize functionality as opposed to seeking mythical cures is the stronger line of visit discussions, but that takes a bit of time and skill in interviewing.

“It is fairly well established that duloxetine is useful in pain management, especially when present with mood disorders, either primary or secondary to the back-related disability,” said Dr. Golden. “Greater dissemination of its utility is probably useful, as is the side effect profile of the drug as well,” given the “nasty discontinuation syndrome when the treatment is reduced or stopped.”

Looking ahead, “more research is needed about microsurgery, namely for whom and for what anatomic presentations,” said Dr. Golden. Other topics for further research include a better understanding about medical marijuana and pain management and its interactions and side effects with other opioids and muscle relaxants. “Polypharmacy is still an issue in this class of patient,” and many of these patients are frustrated and angry “so the psychosocial skills of the PCP can be greatly tested as well,” he said.
 

Empathy promotes patient adherence to treatment

The new opioid prescription guidelines have increased interest among clinicians in how to improve patient satisfaction with the care for back pain provided, Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “These studies address this concern and bring forth an important aspect of the physician-patient relationship, namely the human touch and empathy.”

“I have been a strong proponent of the trust and relationship between a physician and patient; displaying empathy and increased and transparent communication between the physician and the patient has always resulted in better relationships and better outcomes for patients, especially those dealing with chronic health concerns,” said Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wisc.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital, also in Antigo.

Potential barriers to effective pain management include beliefs and attitudes on the part of patients, Dr. Deep noted. “Physicians lacking adequate time to communicate effectively with the patient and describe nonopioid and nonsurgical interventions would be another potential barrier.” Other issues include the time and effort, as well as cost, associated with interventions such as physical therapy and other nondrug and nonsurgical interventions. Issues with family and social support and health literacy are also potential barriers to pain management.
 

Clinical takeaways

Low back pain is one of the most common reasons for a visit in primary care and can be “chronic and debilitating,” Grace Lin, MD, an internal medicine physician and primary care provider at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“One issue with the Cochrane Review on exercise is that the studies on exercise were heterogeneous, so it’s difficult to know whether there is a particular kind of exercise that would be most effective and should be recommended to patients,” she said.

Furthermore, she said, “there is a physical therapist shortage in the U.S. I practice in a major city with a large health care system, and it can still take months to get an appointment with a physical therapist.” Also, insurance coverage may limit which therapists a patient can see and how many visits they can have.

“On the clinician side, I think physicians need to be better informed about the evidence base for back pain treatment, namely that exercise is effective and that, long term, analgesics are not,” Dr. Lin said. “This might decrease overprescription of ineffective analgesics and encourage more education about and referrals to physical therapy.”

“Physicians should continue to educate patients that physical therapy is the first-line treatment for back pain and that pain medications are secondary,” she said. “I think that analgesics can be effective for the short term to get people to a point where they feel well enough to do physical therapy. Duloxetine also appears to be moderately effective for chronic low back pain, in part because it may also help address coexisting depression and anxiety,” but these options should be reserved for adjuncts to physical therapy for back pain.

The findings from the study on empathy and communication suggest that the main challenges to these behaviors are systemic, said Dr. Lin.

“Our health care system is not conducive to treating chronic back pain,” she said. Primary care visits that last for 15 or 20 minutes are not long enough to diagnose and counsel patients on such a complex problem as chronic low back pain. Since back pain is usually not the only issue the primary care physician is dealing with during that visit, this can lead to patients feeling like their doctor isn’t listening to them and doesn’t care about their pain.

“We need to better understand the mechanisms by which people develop chronic, debilitating back pain,” Dr. Lin said. “I think if we understood this better, more effective and targeted treatments, both pharmacological and nonpharmacological, could be developed.”

The Annals of Family Medicine study received no outside funding, and the researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The Cochrane Reviews was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s Health Technology Assessment program, and the authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Golden and Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serve on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Lin disclosed receiving research funding from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and the National Institutes of Health.

Treatment of chronic back pain remains a challenge for primary care physicians, and a new Cochrane Review confirms previous studies suggesting that analgesics and antidepressants fall short in terms of relief.

Data from another Cochrane Review support the value of exercise for chronic low back pain, although it is often underused, and the Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of a spinal cord stimulation device for chronic back pain opens the door for another alternative.

Regardless of treatment type, however, patients report that empathy and clear communication from their doctors go a long way in their satisfaction with pain management, according to another recent study.
 

Exercise helps when patients adhere

The objective of the Cochrane Review on “Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain” was to determine whether exercise improves pain and functioning for people with chronic low back pain, compared with no treatment, usual care, or other common treatments, corresponding author Jill Hayden, PhD, of Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., said in an interview.

When back pain is chronic, it is expensive in terms of health care costs and lost work hours, said Dr. Hayden. “Exercise is promoted in many guidelines and is often recommended for, and used by, people with chronic low back pain.” However, “systematic reviews have found only small treatment effects, with considerable variation across individual trials.”

The 2021 review is one of the largest in the Cochrane Library, and included 249 trials and 24,486 study participants. However, Dr. Hayden said she had been disappointed by the methodological limitations of many of the trials. “The field is saturated with small exercise trials, many of which suffer from poor planning, conduct, and reporting due to limited resources.”

In the current review, “we found that exercise is likely to be effective for chronic low back pain. Overall, 3 months after the start of treatment, people receiving exercise treatment rated their pain an average of 15 points better on a scale of 0-100, and functional limitations were 7 points better, compared to people who had no treatment or usual care,” said Dr. Hayden.

Barriers to the use of exercise to treat pain may include fear of movement on the part of patients, she noted.

“Although our related network meta-analysis found some differences between specific types of exercise, we found all exercise types are more effective than minimal treatment,” she said. “People with chronic low back pain should be encouraged to do exercises that they enjoy and will do consistently to promote adherence.”
 

Limitations of medications

Both the safety and effectiveness of analgesics and antidepressants for pain in general and back pain in particular have come under scrutiny in recent research. A study published online in the British Medical Journal of patients with acute low back pain found that, although some medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, the quality of the studies was “low or very low confidence,” according to a Medscape report on the findings.

This conclusion was supported in a large-scale analysis of the safety and effectiveness of antidepressants in chronic pain conditions, including back pain.

A new Cochrane Review led by a team of researchers in the United Kingdom found inadequate evidence to support the effectiveness of most antidepressants used for chronic pain, including amitriptyline, fluoxetine, citalopram, paroxetine, sertraline, and duloxetine.

“While chronic pain remains one of the top causes of daily disability worldwide, clinicians’ choices at offering interventions are getting fewer, especially if they tend toward a medical model and want a pharmacological solution,” corresponding author Tamar Pincus, PhD, of the University of Southampton (England), said in an interview. “We now know that opioids harm patients, and the evidence for common analgesics such as paracetamol and ibuprofen, for some conditions such as back pain, suggest they are not effective and might cause harm. This leaves clinicians with few options, and the most common prescription, supported by guidelines, is antidepressants.”

The study found moderate evidence that duloxetine can reduce pain in the short term and improve physical activity and some evidence that milnacipran might also be effective, Dr. Pincus said. “For all other antidepressants, including the commonly prescribed amitriptyline, the evidence was poor. Of importance, the average length of trials was 10 weeks, so long-term effects for all antidepressants remain unknown, and side effects and adverse events were reported poorly, so we also don’t know if any antidepressants are harmful.”

The takeaway message for the management of back pain in particular? “If a clinician and a patient decide together that it would be a good idea to try an antidepressant to reduce pain, they should consider starting with duloxetine, the drug with supporting evidence,” she said.
 

Physician attitude matters

Antidepressants may not have much impact on chronic pain, but a physician’s empathy and support do, according to data from a registry study of more than 1,300 individuals.

Despite efforts and guidelines from multiple medical organizations to promote optimal pain management, “much remains unknown regarding how the patient-physician interaction affects the process of delivering medical care for chronic low back pain and, ultimately, patient satisfaction,” John C. Licciardone, DO, of the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Family Medicine.

Previous studies have examined the relationship between clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction, but data on patient satisfaction with medical care for chronic low back pain specifically are limited, they said.

The researchers reviewed data from a national pain registry of adults aged 21-79 years that included self-reported measures of physician communication and empathy, prescribing data for opioids, and outcomes data for pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life.

In a multivariate analysis, physician empathy and physician communication showed the strongest associations with patient satisfaction (P < .001).

The researchers found a negligible correlation between opioid prescription and perceived physician empathy and communication, “although current physician prescribing of opioids was also associated with patient satisfaction,” they wrote.

“Our findings pertaining to physician empathy are intriguing because they do not necessarily involve a therapeutic alliance with the patient based on collaborative communication or the expectation of a therapeutic effect via pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote .

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that prevented conclusions about cause and effect, the researchers noted. “It is possible that prior improvements in pain intensity, physical function, or [health-related quality of life] might have prompted participants to report more favorable ratings for physician empathy, physician communication, or patient satisfaction at registry enrollment.” However, the study supports the view that patients with low back pain in particular value physicians who validate their concerns and symptoms, and who make an effort to communicate treatment plans clearly.
 

Back pain patients continue to challenge primary care

“Back pain is a major issue in U.S. health care, in part because too many people have tough physical jobs or longstanding injuries that become chronic,” William Golden, MD, professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview.

“There are no magic bullets for a lot of back pain patients, so empathy and support are key drivers,” he noted. “Helping patients maximize functionality as opposed to seeking mythical cures is the stronger line of visit discussions, but that takes a bit of time and skill in interviewing.

“It is fairly well established that duloxetine is useful in pain management, especially when present with mood disorders, either primary or secondary to the back-related disability,” said Dr. Golden. “Greater dissemination of its utility is probably useful, as is the side effect profile of the drug as well,” given the “nasty discontinuation syndrome when the treatment is reduced or stopped.”

Looking ahead, “more research is needed about microsurgery, namely for whom and for what anatomic presentations,” said Dr. Golden. Other topics for further research include a better understanding about medical marijuana and pain management and its interactions and side effects with other opioids and muscle relaxants. “Polypharmacy is still an issue in this class of patient,” and many of these patients are frustrated and angry “so the psychosocial skills of the PCP can be greatly tested as well,” he said.
 

Empathy promotes patient adherence to treatment

The new opioid prescription guidelines have increased interest among clinicians in how to improve patient satisfaction with the care for back pain provided, Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “These studies address this concern and bring forth an important aspect of the physician-patient relationship, namely the human touch and empathy.”

“I have been a strong proponent of the trust and relationship between a physician and patient; displaying empathy and increased and transparent communication between the physician and the patient has always resulted in better relationships and better outcomes for patients, especially those dealing with chronic health concerns,” said Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wisc.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital, also in Antigo.

Potential barriers to effective pain management include beliefs and attitudes on the part of patients, Dr. Deep noted. “Physicians lacking adequate time to communicate effectively with the patient and describe nonopioid and nonsurgical interventions would be another potential barrier.” Other issues include the time and effort, as well as cost, associated with interventions such as physical therapy and other nondrug and nonsurgical interventions. Issues with family and social support and health literacy are also potential barriers to pain management.
 

Clinical takeaways

Low back pain is one of the most common reasons for a visit in primary care and can be “chronic and debilitating,” Grace Lin, MD, an internal medicine physician and primary care provider at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“One issue with the Cochrane Review on exercise is that the studies on exercise were heterogeneous, so it’s difficult to know whether there is a particular kind of exercise that would be most effective and should be recommended to patients,” she said.

Furthermore, she said, “there is a physical therapist shortage in the U.S. I practice in a major city with a large health care system, and it can still take months to get an appointment with a physical therapist.” Also, insurance coverage may limit which therapists a patient can see and how many visits they can have.

“On the clinician side, I think physicians need to be better informed about the evidence base for back pain treatment, namely that exercise is effective and that, long term, analgesics are not,” Dr. Lin said. “This might decrease overprescription of ineffective analgesics and encourage more education about and referrals to physical therapy.”

“Physicians should continue to educate patients that physical therapy is the first-line treatment for back pain and that pain medications are secondary,” she said. “I think that analgesics can be effective for the short term to get people to a point where they feel well enough to do physical therapy. Duloxetine also appears to be moderately effective for chronic low back pain, in part because it may also help address coexisting depression and anxiety,” but these options should be reserved for adjuncts to physical therapy for back pain.

The findings from the study on empathy and communication suggest that the main challenges to these behaviors are systemic, said Dr. Lin.

“Our health care system is not conducive to treating chronic back pain,” she said. Primary care visits that last for 15 or 20 minutes are not long enough to diagnose and counsel patients on such a complex problem as chronic low back pain. Since back pain is usually not the only issue the primary care physician is dealing with during that visit, this can lead to patients feeling like their doctor isn’t listening to them and doesn’t care about their pain.

“We need to better understand the mechanisms by which people develop chronic, debilitating back pain,” Dr. Lin said. “I think if we understood this better, more effective and targeted treatments, both pharmacological and nonpharmacological, could be developed.”

The Annals of Family Medicine study received no outside funding, and the researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The Cochrane Reviews was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s Health Technology Assessment program, and the authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Golden and Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serve on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Lin disclosed receiving research funding from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and the National Institutes of Health.

CHICAGO – Irrespective of the number of infliximab switches, multiple, successive switches from infliximab originator to biosimilars are effective and safe in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to analysis of a real world IBD cohort presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“These findings are of major socioeconomic importance, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the access to health care may be limited,” said study author Beatriz Gros, MD, an advanced clinical fellow in gastroenterology at Western General Hospital of Edinburgh.

While switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar infliximab is known observationally to be safe and effective, data on single and double switches are scarce, and are lacking on triple switches. Infliximab, the first monoclonal antibody biologic inhibiting anti–tumor necrosis factor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and by the European Medicines Agency in 1998 and 1999, respectively. Economic pressures led to the development of biosimilars, with the first EMA approval in 2013 and FDA approval in 2016. Uptake in Europe has been broad and expanding following evidence that early therapy is associated with better outcomes. In the United States, a recent RAND Corporation study estimated savings to be $38.4 billion or 5.9% of projected total spending on biologics from 2021 to 2025, Dr. Gros reported.

The Edinburgh IBD unit has undertaken three switch programs starting with originator to CT-P13 in 2016, CT-P13 to SB2 in 2020, and SB2 to CT-P13 in 2021. Their prospective, observational cohort study assessing safety and efficacy after switching from SB2 to CT-P13 has, as a primary endpoint, CT-P13 persistence following the switch from SB2. Stratification of persistence according to the number of switches, effectiveness, immunogenicity, and safety were secondary outcomes.

During routine virtual biologic clinic care, researchers collected clinical disease activity scores (Harvey-Bradshaw Index; partial Mayo score), laboratory parameters (including C-reactive protein [CRP], IFX trough, and antibody levels), and fecal calprotectin on 297 IBD patients (median age, 37 years; 61.6% male). Among them, 67 had three switches, 138 had two switches, and 92 had one switch. Median disease duration was longer (11.4 years) for those with three switches than for two switches (6.3 years) or one switch (2.3 years) (P < .0001)

Infliximab persistence

Out of 297 patients, 269 (90.6%) remained on infliximab at week 24. Reasons for discontinuing treatment were immunogenicity (15/297; 5.1%), secondary loss of response (7/297, 2.4%), adverse events (3/297, 1%), patient’s choice (2/297, 0.7%), and primary nonresponse (1/297, 0.3%).

While infliximab persistence was 82.6%, 92.8% and 97% in patients with one, two and three infliximab switches, respectively (P = .003), after confounder adjustment, the number of switches was not independently associated with infliximab persistence, Dr. Gros said.

What factors actually did predict infliximab persistence? Multivariable analysis identified absence of biochemical remission (CRP > 5 mg/L [hazard ratio, 3.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-7.24]); a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis/ inflammatory bowel disease unclassified (HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.19-6.06), detectable antibodies against infliximab at switch (HR, 5.81; 95% CI, 2.27-12.84) and time on infliximab (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95) as independent predictors for infliximab persistence rather than number of infliximab switches.

Clinical (P = .77), biochemical (P = .75), and fecal biomarker (P = .63) remission rates, Dr. Gros reported, were comparable at baseline, week 12 and week 24, with baseline rates for clinical, biochemical and fecal biomarker remission at 79.4%, 85.2%, and 85.3%, respectively, and at 81%, 86.5%, and 84.4% at week 24.

“Immunogenicity has been a major concern regarding multiple switches, although both our study and previous literature demonstrated that this seemed to be not happening more often to patients who had multiple switches compared to those who had fewer or none. Our study found that, of the 14 (7.1%) patients who developed de novo antibodies, none of them underwent three switches,” she said.

Dr. Gros disclosed relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, and Jansen.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – Irrespective of the number of infliximab switches, multiple, successive switches from infliximab originator to biosimilars are effective and safe in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to analysis of a real world IBD cohort presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“These findings are of major socioeconomic importance, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the access to health care may be limited,” said study author Beatriz Gros, MD, an advanced clinical fellow in gastroenterology at Western General Hospital of Edinburgh.

While switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar infliximab is known observationally to be safe and effective, data on single and double switches are scarce, and are lacking on triple switches. Infliximab, the first monoclonal antibody biologic inhibiting anti–tumor necrosis factor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and by the European Medicines Agency in 1998 and 1999, respectively. Economic pressures led to the development of biosimilars, with the first EMA approval in 2013 and FDA approval in 2016. Uptake in Europe has been broad and expanding following evidence that early therapy is associated with better outcomes. In the United States, a recent RAND Corporation study estimated savings to be $38.4 billion or 5.9% of projected total spending on biologics from 2021 to 2025, Dr. Gros reported.

The Edinburgh IBD unit has undertaken three switch programs starting with originator to CT-P13 in 2016, CT-P13 to SB2 in 2020, and SB2 to CT-P13 in 2021. Their prospective, observational cohort study assessing safety and efficacy after switching from SB2 to CT-P13 has, as a primary endpoint, CT-P13 persistence following the switch from SB2. Stratification of persistence according to the number of switches, effectiveness, immunogenicity, and safety were secondary outcomes.

During routine virtual biologic clinic care, researchers collected clinical disease activity scores (Harvey-Bradshaw Index; partial Mayo score), laboratory parameters (including C-reactive protein [CRP], IFX trough, and antibody levels), and fecal calprotectin on 297 IBD patients (median age, 37 years; 61.6% male). Among them, 67 had three switches, 138 had two switches, and 92 had one switch. Median disease duration was longer (11.4 years) for those with three switches than for two switches (6.3 years) or one switch (2.3 years) (P < .0001)

Infliximab persistence

Out of 297 patients, 269 (90.6%) remained on infliximab at week 24. Reasons for discontinuing treatment were immunogenicity (15/297; 5.1%), secondary loss of response (7/297, 2.4%), adverse events (3/297, 1%), patient’s choice (2/297, 0.7%), and primary nonresponse (1/297, 0.3%).

While infliximab persistence was 82.6%, 92.8% and 97% in patients with one, two and three infliximab switches, respectively (P = .003), after confounder adjustment, the number of switches was not independently associated with infliximab persistence, Dr. Gros said.

What factors actually did predict infliximab persistence? Multivariable analysis identified absence of biochemical remission (CRP > 5 mg/L [hazard ratio, 3.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-7.24]); a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis/ inflammatory bowel disease unclassified (HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.19-6.06), detectable antibodies against infliximab at switch (HR, 5.81; 95% CI, 2.27-12.84) and time on infliximab (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95) as independent predictors for infliximab persistence rather than number of infliximab switches.

Clinical (P = .77), biochemical (P = .75), and fecal biomarker (P = .63) remission rates, Dr. Gros reported, were comparable at baseline, week 12 and week 24, with baseline rates for clinical, biochemical and fecal biomarker remission at 79.4%, 85.2%, and 85.3%, respectively, and at 81%, 86.5%, and 84.4% at week 24.

“Immunogenicity has been a major concern regarding multiple switches, although both our study and previous literature demonstrated that this seemed to be not happening more often to patients who had multiple switches compared to those who had fewer or none. Our study found that, of the 14 (7.1%) patients who developed de novo antibodies, none of them underwent three switches,” she said.

Dr. Gros disclosed relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, and Jansen.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – Irrespective of the number of infliximab switches, multiple, successive switches from infliximab originator to biosimilars are effective and safe in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to analysis of a real world IBD cohort presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“These findings are of major socioeconomic importance, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the access to health care may be limited,” said study author Beatriz Gros, MD, an advanced clinical fellow in gastroenterology at Western General Hospital of Edinburgh.

While switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar infliximab is known observationally to be safe and effective, data on single and double switches are scarce, and are lacking on triple switches. Infliximab, the first monoclonal antibody biologic inhibiting anti–tumor necrosis factor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and by the European Medicines Agency in 1998 and 1999, respectively. Economic pressures led to the development of biosimilars, with the first EMA approval in 2013 and FDA approval in 2016. Uptake in Europe has been broad and expanding following evidence that early therapy is associated with better outcomes. In the United States, a recent RAND Corporation study estimated savings to be $38.4 billion or 5.9% of projected total spending on biologics from 2021 to 2025, Dr. Gros reported.

The Edinburgh IBD unit has undertaken three switch programs starting with originator to CT-P13 in 2016, CT-P13 to SB2 in 2020, and SB2 to CT-P13 in 2021. Their prospective, observational cohort study assessing safety and efficacy after switching from SB2 to CT-P13 has, as a primary endpoint, CT-P13 persistence following the switch from SB2. Stratification of persistence according to the number of switches, effectiveness, immunogenicity, and safety were secondary outcomes.

During routine virtual biologic clinic care, researchers collected clinical disease activity scores (Harvey-Bradshaw Index; partial Mayo score), laboratory parameters (including C-reactive protein [CRP], IFX trough, and antibody levels), and fecal calprotectin on 297 IBD patients (median age, 37 years; 61.6% male). Among them, 67 had three switches, 138 had two switches, and 92 had one switch. Median disease duration was longer (11.4 years) for those with three switches than for two switches (6.3 years) or one switch (2.3 years) (P < .0001)

Infliximab persistence

Out of 297 patients, 269 (90.6%) remained on infliximab at week 24. Reasons for discontinuing treatment were immunogenicity (15/297; 5.1%), secondary loss of response (7/297, 2.4%), adverse events (3/297, 1%), patient’s choice (2/297, 0.7%), and primary nonresponse (1/297, 0.3%).

While infliximab persistence was 82.6%, 92.8% and 97% in patients with one, two and three infliximab switches, respectively (P = .003), after confounder adjustment, the number of switches was not independently associated with infliximab persistence, Dr. Gros said.

What factors actually did predict infliximab persistence? Multivariable analysis identified absence of biochemical remission (CRP > 5 mg/L [hazard ratio, 3.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-7.24]); a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis/ inflammatory bowel disease unclassified (HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.19-6.06), detectable antibodies against infliximab at switch (HR, 5.81; 95% CI, 2.27-12.84) and time on infliximab (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95) as independent predictors for infliximab persistence rather than number of infliximab switches.

Clinical (P = .77), biochemical (P = .75), and fecal biomarker (P = .63) remission rates, Dr. Gros reported, were comparable at baseline, week 12 and week 24, with baseline rates for clinical, biochemical and fecal biomarker remission at 79.4%, 85.2%, and 85.3%, respectively, and at 81%, 86.5%, and 84.4% at week 24.

“Immunogenicity has been a major concern regarding multiple switches, although both our study and previous literature demonstrated that this seemed to be not happening more often to patients who had multiple switches compared to those who had fewer or none. Our study found that, of the 14 (7.1%) patients who developed de novo antibodies, none of them underwent three switches,” she said.

Dr. Gros disclosed relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, and Jansen.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

WASHINGTON – Abrocitinib demonstrated an acceptable long-term safety profile in adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in an integrated safety analysis of 635 adolescents and over 1,000 patient-years of exposure, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

In March 2023, the oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adolescents aged 12-17 with refractory moderate to severe AD – an expanded indication from the approval in adults in 2022.

University of California, San Diego

The new analysis evaluated data from patients who participated in the phase 3 JADE clinical trials – MONO-1, MONO-2, TEEN, and REGIMEN – and were subsequently enrolled in the ongoing phase 3 extension trial JADE EXTEND. Compared with a previous post hoc analysis in which adolescent patients had approximately 1 year of exposure, this updated analysis includes a sizable portion of patients with more than 96 weeks of exposure.

“We’re starting to get good numbers of [adolescents] who’ve had about 2 years of exposure,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, during a late-breaking research session.

With a data cut for this analysis of September 2021, “we haven’t seen additive long-term [adverse] effects” with longer exposures, he said. In addition, “there were no unique safety concerns related to adolescents compared to the findings observed [in an] integrated safety analysis using the same data cut in which most patients were adults.”

(The analysis in adults covered 3,802 patients with over 5,000 patient-years of exposure, and was presented at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2023.)

Also presented in the late-breaking abstract session at RAD 2023 was a long-term safety study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), the other JAK1 inhibitor approved for adolescents with AD – approved by the FDA for both adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD in 2022. The new analysis captures exposure of up to 4 years and shows no “worsening or accumulation of events,” compared with 1-year data, reported Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and the program in translational biomedicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Abrocitinib in adolescents

For the safety analysis of abrocitinib (Cibinqo), data were pooled into two cohorts: A consistent-dose cohort of 490 adolescents who received the same dose (200 mg or 100 mg) during the entire duration of the qualifying JADE trials, and a variable-dose cohort of 145 adolescents who received different doses (200 mg or 100 mg) during the JADE REGIMEN qualifying trial.

Duration of exposure was 96 weeks or more in 37%-38% of the consistent-dose cohort and 68% of the variable-dose cohort.

In the consistent-dose cohort, adverse events occurred in 243 (84%) and 153 (76%) of patients receiving 200-mg doses and 100-mg doses, respectively. Incidence rates for severe adverse events were 5.87 per 100 patient-years at both doses, and rates for adverse events leading to study discontinuation were 6.96/100 patient-years at 200 mg and 5.13/100 patient-years at 100 mg.

“No meaningful dose-response relationship was observed for serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation, or adverse events of special interest,” said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

The IRs of adverse events of special interest were 1.84/100 patient-years and 1.28/100 patient-years for serious infection; 2.11/100 patient-years, and 1.62/100 patient-years for all herpes zoster infections; and 0.69/100 patient-years and 0.32/100 patient-years for opportunistic herpes zoster infections in the 200-mg and 100-mg arms, respectively.

“Other than herpes zoster, there were no opportunistic infections observed and no tuberculosis cases,” he said. “There was one nonfatal venous thromboembolism in an adolescent who had a very strong family history of [pulmonary embolism], one retinal detachment [with a concurrent diagnosis of cataracts and of left eyebrow folliculitis], and no events of nonmelanoma skin cancer or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths.” The thromboembolism case was reported in the previous post hoc analysis.

In the variable-dose cohort, data were similar, Dr. Eichenfield said. The IRs for severe adverse events, adverse events leading to study withdrawal, and adverse events of special interest were consistent with those in the other cohort. And similarly, there were no reports of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections (excluding herpes zoster), and no reports of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), or death. In this cohort, there were no venous thromboembolism (VTE) reports.

Upadacitinib in adolescents, adults

The new analysis looked at up to 4 years of upadacitinib treatment in almost 2,700 adolescents and adults– and over 6,200 patient-years – using integrated data from three ongoing pivotal phase 3 studies: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. (Of these patients, 539 were adolescents, Dr. Bunick said after the meeting.)

In the Measure Up studies, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a 15-mg dose, a 30-mg dose, or placebo once daily. In AD Up, patients in each arm received concomitant topical corticosteroids. At week 16, patients receiving the drug continued their assigned treatment during the ongoing blinded extension period, and those receiving placebo were rerandomized to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg.

The exposure-adjusted event rates for any adverse event leading to discontinuation were 4.1/100 patient-years and 4.7/100 patient-years in patients receiving 15 mg and 30 mg, respectively, and the rates of any serious adverse event were 6.5/100 patient-years and 7.5/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported. Three deaths occurred in the 30-mg group; all deaths were related to COVID infection and occurred in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.

Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were similar to those in a previous 1-year analysis. The rate of serious infections per 100 patient years, for instance, was 2.3 and 2.8 in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 2.2 and 2.8 in the 1-year analysis.

The rate of opportunistic infections, including eczema herpeticum (and excluding TB and herpes zoster), saw a slight bump in the new analysis to 2.4/100 patient-years with the 30-mg dose. Other event rates, across both dosages and durations, were less than 0.1/100 patient-years for active TB; 0.3-0.4/100 patient-years for NMSC, and 0.1/100 patient-years or below for other malignancies, MACE, and VTE. Herpes zoster had the highest event rate in both the 1- and 4-year analyses of between 3.1/100 patient-years and 5.8/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported.

The adverse event rates for adolescents and adults “show consistency and are very low,” Dr. Bunick said. At 4 years, no new safety risks were identified.
 

‘The more data ... the better’

Data on the safety of new medications in children and adolescents is always important, and with systemic JAK inhibitors in particular, “the more data we can accumulate in [younger] patients with AD ... the better,” said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the two studies.

Dermatologists have taken comfort in the fact that the “daunting” boxed warning on JAK inhibitors “was generated in a very different population than we generally propose to treat, certainly when talking about children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in either of the new safety analyses.

The JAK inhibitor boxed warning “reflects a study of tofacitinib – a different JAK inhibitor with arguably more risk of adverse effects – in adults over the age of 50 with rheumatoid arthritis and multiple risk factors for comorbidities included in the boxed warning,” he said.

“This allows dermatologists to reasonably conclude that the boxed warning – while critical to discuss and consider in every patient – is likely less concerning than might otherwise by implied.”

With more patient experience, “the more our assessment of risk, and of the ‘legitimacy’ of the boxed warning in our patient population, becomes evidence-based as opposed to extrapolation,” Dr. Sidbury said.

The two studies reported, he said, “detail an experience that is not adverse effect free –I have yet to find that medication – but is a reasonable profile considering the robust efficacy results they accompany.”

The abrocitinib safety analysis was sponsored by Pfizer. Regarding the study of upadacitinib, AbbVie contributed to the design of the safety analysis and participated in data collection. No honoria or payments were made to the authors, according to the study abstract. Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer and other companies, and has served on the speakers bureau/received honoria for Pfizer and other companies. Dr. Bunick is a consultant for AbbVie and other companies, and has served as an speaker/received honoraria or served as an investigator for several companies. Dr. Sidbury disclosed being a consultant/advisory board member for Lilly and Leo and serving on the speakers bureau/honoraria for Beiersdorf. All reported receiving grant/research support from various companies.
 

WASHINGTON – Abrocitinib demonstrated an acceptable long-term safety profile in adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in an integrated safety analysis of 635 adolescents and over 1,000 patient-years of exposure, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

In March 2023, the oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adolescents aged 12-17 with refractory moderate to severe AD – an expanded indication from the approval in adults in 2022.

University of California, San Diego

The new analysis evaluated data from patients who participated in the phase 3 JADE clinical trials – MONO-1, MONO-2, TEEN, and REGIMEN – and were subsequently enrolled in the ongoing phase 3 extension trial JADE EXTEND. Compared with a previous post hoc analysis in which adolescent patients had approximately 1 year of exposure, this updated analysis includes a sizable portion of patients with more than 96 weeks of exposure.

“We’re starting to get good numbers of [adolescents] who’ve had about 2 years of exposure,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, during a late-breaking research session.

With a data cut for this analysis of September 2021, “we haven’t seen additive long-term [adverse] effects” with longer exposures, he said. In addition, “there were no unique safety concerns related to adolescents compared to the findings observed [in an] integrated safety analysis using the same data cut in which most patients were adults.”

(The analysis in adults covered 3,802 patients with over 5,000 patient-years of exposure, and was presented at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2023.)

Also presented in the late-breaking abstract session at RAD 2023 was a long-term safety study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), the other JAK1 inhibitor approved for adolescents with AD – approved by the FDA for both adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD in 2022. The new analysis captures exposure of up to 4 years and shows no “worsening or accumulation of events,” compared with 1-year data, reported Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and the program in translational biomedicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Abrocitinib in adolescents

For the safety analysis of abrocitinib (Cibinqo), data were pooled into two cohorts: A consistent-dose cohort of 490 adolescents who received the same dose (200 mg or 100 mg) during the entire duration of the qualifying JADE trials, and a variable-dose cohort of 145 adolescents who received different doses (200 mg or 100 mg) during the JADE REGIMEN qualifying trial.

Duration of exposure was 96 weeks or more in 37%-38% of the consistent-dose cohort and 68% of the variable-dose cohort.

In the consistent-dose cohort, adverse events occurred in 243 (84%) and 153 (76%) of patients receiving 200-mg doses and 100-mg doses, respectively. Incidence rates for severe adverse events were 5.87 per 100 patient-years at both doses, and rates for adverse events leading to study discontinuation were 6.96/100 patient-years at 200 mg and 5.13/100 patient-years at 100 mg.

“No meaningful dose-response relationship was observed for serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation, or adverse events of special interest,” said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

The IRs of adverse events of special interest were 1.84/100 patient-years and 1.28/100 patient-years for serious infection; 2.11/100 patient-years, and 1.62/100 patient-years for all herpes zoster infections; and 0.69/100 patient-years and 0.32/100 patient-years for opportunistic herpes zoster infections in the 200-mg and 100-mg arms, respectively.

“Other than herpes zoster, there were no opportunistic infections observed and no tuberculosis cases,” he said. “There was one nonfatal venous thromboembolism in an adolescent who had a very strong family history of [pulmonary embolism], one retinal detachment [with a concurrent diagnosis of cataracts and of left eyebrow folliculitis], and no events of nonmelanoma skin cancer or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths.” The thromboembolism case was reported in the previous post hoc analysis.

In the variable-dose cohort, data were similar, Dr. Eichenfield said. The IRs for severe adverse events, adverse events leading to study withdrawal, and adverse events of special interest were consistent with those in the other cohort. And similarly, there were no reports of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections (excluding herpes zoster), and no reports of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), or death. In this cohort, there were no venous thromboembolism (VTE) reports.

Upadacitinib in adolescents, adults

The new analysis looked at up to 4 years of upadacitinib treatment in almost 2,700 adolescents and adults– and over 6,200 patient-years – using integrated data from three ongoing pivotal phase 3 studies: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. (Of these patients, 539 were adolescents, Dr. Bunick said after the meeting.)

In the Measure Up studies, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a 15-mg dose, a 30-mg dose, or placebo once daily. In AD Up, patients in each arm received concomitant topical corticosteroids. At week 16, patients receiving the drug continued their assigned treatment during the ongoing blinded extension period, and those receiving placebo were rerandomized to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg.

The exposure-adjusted event rates for any adverse event leading to discontinuation were 4.1/100 patient-years and 4.7/100 patient-years in patients receiving 15 mg and 30 mg, respectively, and the rates of any serious adverse event were 6.5/100 patient-years and 7.5/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported. Three deaths occurred in the 30-mg group; all deaths were related to COVID infection and occurred in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.

Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were similar to those in a previous 1-year analysis. The rate of serious infections per 100 patient years, for instance, was 2.3 and 2.8 in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 2.2 and 2.8 in the 1-year analysis.

The rate of opportunistic infections, including eczema herpeticum (and excluding TB and herpes zoster), saw a slight bump in the new analysis to 2.4/100 patient-years with the 30-mg dose. Other event rates, across both dosages and durations, were less than 0.1/100 patient-years for active TB; 0.3-0.4/100 patient-years for NMSC, and 0.1/100 patient-years or below for other malignancies, MACE, and VTE. Herpes zoster had the highest event rate in both the 1- and 4-year analyses of between 3.1/100 patient-years and 5.8/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported.

The adverse event rates for adolescents and adults “show consistency and are very low,” Dr. Bunick said. At 4 years, no new safety risks were identified.
 

‘The more data ... the better’

Data on the safety of new medications in children and adolescents is always important, and with systemic JAK inhibitors in particular, “the more data we can accumulate in [younger] patients with AD ... the better,” said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the two studies.

Dermatologists have taken comfort in the fact that the “daunting” boxed warning on JAK inhibitors “was generated in a very different population than we generally propose to treat, certainly when talking about children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in either of the new safety analyses.

The JAK inhibitor boxed warning “reflects a study of tofacitinib – a different JAK inhibitor with arguably more risk of adverse effects – in adults over the age of 50 with rheumatoid arthritis and multiple risk factors for comorbidities included in the boxed warning,” he said.

“This allows dermatologists to reasonably conclude that the boxed warning – while critical to discuss and consider in every patient – is likely less concerning than might otherwise by implied.”

With more patient experience, “the more our assessment of risk, and of the ‘legitimacy’ of the boxed warning in our patient population, becomes evidence-based as opposed to extrapolation,” Dr. Sidbury said.

The two studies reported, he said, “detail an experience that is not adverse effect free –I have yet to find that medication – but is a reasonable profile considering the robust efficacy results they accompany.”

The abrocitinib safety analysis was sponsored by Pfizer. Regarding the study of upadacitinib, AbbVie contributed to the design of the safety analysis and participated in data collection. No honoria or payments were made to the authors, according to the study abstract. Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer and other companies, and has served on the speakers bureau/received honoria for Pfizer and other companies. Dr. Bunick is a consultant for AbbVie and other companies, and has served as an speaker/received honoraria or served as an investigator for several companies. Dr. Sidbury disclosed being a consultant/advisory board member for Lilly and Leo and serving on the speakers bureau/honoraria for Beiersdorf. All reported receiving grant/research support from various companies.
 

WASHINGTON – Abrocitinib demonstrated an acceptable long-term safety profile in adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in an integrated safety analysis of 635 adolescents and over 1,000 patient-years of exposure, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

In March 2023, the oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adolescents aged 12-17 with refractory moderate to severe AD – an expanded indication from the approval in adults in 2022.

University of California, San Diego

The new analysis evaluated data from patients who participated in the phase 3 JADE clinical trials – MONO-1, MONO-2, TEEN, and REGIMEN – and were subsequently enrolled in the ongoing phase 3 extension trial JADE EXTEND. Compared with a previous post hoc analysis in which adolescent patients had approximately 1 year of exposure, this updated analysis includes a sizable portion of patients with more than 96 weeks of exposure.

“We’re starting to get good numbers of [adolescents] who’ve had about 2 years of exposure,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, during a late-breaking research session.

With a data cut for this analysis of September 2021, “we haven’t seen additive long-term [adverse] effects” with longer exposures, he said. In addition, “there were no unique safety concerns related to adolescents compared to the findings observed [in an] integrated safety analysis using the same data cut in which most patients were adults.”

(The analysis in adults covered 3,802 patients with over 5,000 patient-years of exposure, and was presented at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2023.)

Also presented in the late-breaking abstract session at RAD 2023 was a long-term safety study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), the other JAK1 inhibitor approved for adolescents with AD – approved by the FDA for both adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD in 2022. The new analysis captures exposure of up to 4 years and shows no “worsening or accumulation of events,” compared with 1-year data, reported Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and the program in translational biomedicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Abrocitinib in adolescents

For the safety analysis of abrocitinib (Cibinqo), data were pooled into two cohorts: A consistent-dose cohort of 490 adolescents who received the same dose (200 mg or 100 mg) during the entire duration of the qualifying JADE trials, and a variable-dose cohort of 145 adolescents who received different doses (200 mg or 100 mg) during the JADE REGIMEN qualifying trial.

Duration of exposure was 96 weeks or more in 37%-38% of the consistent-dose cohort and 68% of the variable-dose cohort.

In the consistent-dose cohort, adverse events occurred in 243 (84%) and 153 (76%) of patients receiving 200-mg doses and 100-mg doses, respectively. Incidence rates for severe adverse events were 5.87 per 100 patient-years at both doses, and rates for adverse events leading to study discontinuation were 6.96/100 patient-years at 200 mg and 5.13/100 patient-years at 100 mg.

“No meaningful dose-response relationship was observed for serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation, or adverse events of special interest,” said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

The IRs of adverse events of special interest were 1.84/100 patient-years and 1.28/100 patient-years for serious infection; 2.11/100 patient-years, and 1.62/100 patient-years for all herpes zoster infections; and 0.69/100 patient-years and 0.32/100 patient-years for opportunistic herpes zoster infections in the 200-mg and 100-mg arms, respectively.

“Other than herpes zoster, there were no opportunistic infections observed and no tuberculosis cases,” he said. “There was one nonfatal venous thromboembolism in an adolescent who had a very strong family history of [pulmonary embolism], one retinal detachment [with a concurrent diagnosis of cataracts and of left eyebrow folliculitis], and no events of nonmelanoma skin cancer or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths.” The thromboembolism case was reported in the previous post hoc analysis.

In the variable-dose cohort, data were similar, Dr. Eichenfield said. The IRs for severe adverse events, adverse events leading to study withdrawal, and adverse events of special interest were consistent with those in the other cohort. And similarly, there were no reports of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections (excluding herpes zoster), and no reports of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), or death. In this cohort, there were no venous thromboembolism (VTE) reports.

Upadacitinib in adolescents, adults

The new analysis looked at up to 4 years of upadacitinib treatment in almost 2,700 adolescents and adults– and over 6,200 patient-years – using integrated data from three ongoing pivotal phase 3 studies: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. (Of these patients, 539 were adolescents, Dr. Bunick said after the meeting.)

In the Measure Up studies, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a 15-mg dose, a 30-mg dose, or placebo once daily. In AD Up, patients in each arm received concomitant topical corticosteroids. At week 16, patients receiving the drug continued their assigned treatment during the ongoing blinded extension period, and those receiving placebo were rerandomized to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg.

The exposure-adjusted event rates for any adverse event leading to discontinuation were 4.1/100 patient-years and 4.7/100 patient-years in patients receiving 15 mg and 30 mg, respectively, and the rates of any serious adverse event were 6.5/100 patient-years and 7.5/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported. Three deaths occurred in the 30-mg group; all deaths were related to COVID infection and occurred in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.

Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were similar to those in a previous 1-year analysis. The rate of serious infections per 100 patient years, for instance, was 2.3 and 2.8 in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 2.2 and 2.8 in the 1-year analysis.

The rate of opportunistic infections, including eczema herpeticum (and excluding TB and herpes zoster), saw a slight bump in the new analysis to 2.4/100 patient-years with the 30-mg dose. Other event rates, across both dosages and durations, were less than 0.1/100 patient-years for active TB; 0.3-0.4/100 patient-years for NMSC, and 0.1/100 patient-years or below for other malignancies, MACE, and VTE. Herpes zoster had the highest event rate in both the 1- and 4-year analyses of between 3.1/100 patient-years and 5.8/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported.

The adverse event rates for adolescents and adults “show consistency and are very low,” Dr. Bunick said. At 4 years, no new safety risks were identified.
 

‘The more data ... the better’

Data on the safety of new medications in children and adolescents is always important, and with systemic JAK inhibitors in particular, “the more data we can accumulate in [younger] patients with AD ... the better,” said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the two studies.

Dermatologists have taken comfort in the fact that the “daunting” boxed warning on JAK inhibitors “was generated in a very different population than we generally propose to treat, certainly when talking about children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in either of the new safety analyses.

The JAK inhibitor boxed warning “reflects a study of tofacitinib – a different JAK inhibitor with arguably more risk of adverse effects – in adults over the age of 50 with rheumatoid arthritis and multiple risk factors for comorbidities included in the boxed warning,” he said.

“This allows dermatologists to reasonably conclude that the boxed warning – while critical to discuss and consider in every patient – is likely less concerning than might otherwise by implied.”

With more patient experience, “the more our assessment of risk, and of the ‘legitimacy’ of the boxed warning in our patient population, becomes evidence-based as opposed to extrapolation,” Dr. Sidbury said.

The two studies reported, he said, “detail an experience that is not adverse effect free –I have yet to find that medication – but is a reasonable profile considering the robust efficacy results they accompany.”

The abrocitinib safety analysis was sponsored by Pfizer. Regarding the study of upadacitinib, AbbVie contributed to the design of the safety analysis and participated in data collection. No honoria or payments were made to the authors, according to the study abstract. Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer and other companies, and has served on the speakers bureau/received honoria for Pfizer and other companies. Dr. Bunick is a consultant for AbbVie and other companies, and has served as an speaker/received honoraria or served as an investigator for several companies. Dr. Sidbury disclosed being a consultant/advisory board member for Lilly and Leo and serving on the speakers bureau/honoraria for Beiersdorf. All reported receiving grant/research support from various companies.
 

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Imagine a day when a simple injection prompts a broken bone to heal. When tiny, ingestible devices linger in the body, unnoticed, tracking our health or delivering life-saving medications. When brain and heart implants mesh with flesh so seamlessly that the body thinks they’ve been there all along.

These are the dreams of materials scientists who have toiled for decades to mimic the complex architecture of the human body in hopes of replacing broken parts or treating disease.

The problem, say bioengineers, is that most replacement and corrective parts – from prosthetics to pacemakers – are made of hard, dry, lifeless materials, like metal or plastic, while biological tissue is soft, wet, and living. 

The body knows the difference and tends to reject imitations.

Enter hydrogels, three-dimensional networks of molecules swollen with – by definition – water. 

First described in 1960 by creators of soft contact lenses, these weird, shape-shifting substances are able to morph from liquid to solid to a squishy in-between. (Early, simple uses include hair gel or Jell-O.). Slow to gain attention, growing to just 1,000 studies published by 1982, they’ve become the subject of intense study recently, with 100,000 papers published by 2020, and 3,800 already this year alone.

As chemists, biologists, and engineers begin to work more with one another and with medical doctors, the burgeoning hydrogel field is poised to transform the way we take medication and treat worn-out joints and pave the way for a seemingly sci-fi future in which organs, including brains, can interact directly with machines.

“We are, essentially, hydrogels,” said Benjamin Wiley, PhD, a chemistry professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “As people develop new hydrogels that more closely match the tissues in our body, we’ll be able to treat a whole host of ailments we couldn’t treat before.”
 

From contact lenses to brain implants

Put simply, a hydrogel is like a mesh bag of water. 

The mesh is made of polymers, or spaghetti-like strands of molecules, stitched together in a repeating pattern and swollen with H₂O, much like the way 3D matrixes in our body surround, support, and give structure to our cells and tissues.

“Imagine a soccer net, with all of these long fibers woven together to create the net,” said Eric Appel, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

While the broader category of “gels” could be filled with anything, including chemical solvents, water is the key ingredient that sets hydrogels apart, making them ideal for, as some scientists put it, “merging humans and machines.”

Human bones are about 25% water, while muscles hover around 70% and the brain is 85%. The precious liquid plays a host of critical roles, from shuttling nutrients in and waste out to helping cells talk to each other. 

Lab-made hydrogels can be loaded with cargo (like a ball in the net), including cells or drugs that help mimic some of those functions.

Hydrogels are soft and pliable like flesh. So, if used in implants, they may be less likely to damage surrounding tissue.

“Think about a metal spoon in your bowl of pudding. As you’re shaking the bowl, the spoon doesn’t stay in place, and you get scarring around the spoon,” said Christina Tringides, PhD, a materials scientist who studies neural engineering. That, she says, is exactly what happens to brain implants when patients breathe or move. “It’s a mechanical mismatch. But with hydrogels, you could get perfect mechanical matching.”

Hydrogels also tend to be nontoxic, so the immune system may be less likely to attack them as foreign bodies.

All this has made hydrogels the new darling of the bioengineering world. 

“There has been an absolute explosion of interest in these materials,” Dr. Appel said.
 

Smarter drug delivery and ingestible electronics

Early versions of hydrogels were thick and gooey, making it hard to get them inside the body.

“Think of a block of Jell-O. You couldn’t inject something like that,” Dr. Appel said.

But Dr. Appel, whose lab develops new drug delivery systems, has been tinkering with gel formulas for years in hopes that these high-tech globs could someday ferry timed-release drugs to just the right spot in the body.

His new hydrogels start as fully formed gels (which help preserve the drug contents) inside a syringe. But once the plunger is pushed, they magically shape-shift to a liquid thin enough to flow easily through a standard needle. Upon exit, they immediately reform into gels, protecting the inherent cargo from degrading.

This could be a game changer at a time when many cutting-edge drugs – think Humira for arthritis or Ozempic for type 2 diabetes – are made of quickly degrading proteins too large and complex to simply jam into a pill. Instead, they must be injected, often frequently.

“Because the gel takes months to dissolve, it slowly delivers the drug over time,” Dr. Appel said. “You could conceivably go from a shot once a week to once every 4 months.”

Such slow-release hydrogels could make vaccines last longer, in turn teaching the body to better resist emerging virus variants, and deliver tumor-busting therapies more precisely, said Dr. Appel, who has formed a startup and hopes to fast-track the first hydrogel drug delivery system to clinical trials within a few years.

Meanwhile, another team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has taken a different approach, developing a standard-sized ingestible hydrogel pill that swells up like a puffer fish in the stomach, lasting a month and slowly releasing drugs all the while. To remove the pill, a patient simply drinks a salt-based solution that shrivels the ping-pong ball–sized device so it can be passed out of the body.

In a paper in Nature Communications, the scientists showed the puffer fish pill could also be loaded with tiny cameras or monitors to track conditions like ulcers or cancer.

“The dream is to have a Jell-O-like smart pill that, once swallowed, stays in the stomach and monitors the patient’s health,” said Xuanhe Zhao, PhD, a researcher on the project and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.
 

Building joints and regrowing bones

Since the 1970s, researchers have mulled using hydrogels to replace human cartilage, a remarkably strong and flexible tissue made of about 90% water but able to withstand the weight of a car on an area about the size of a coin.

Until recently, those efforts have largely failed. Meaning when knee cartilage wears down, things like cartilage transplants, drilling holes to stimulate new growth, or total joint replacements – all of which require lengthy rehab – are the only options. 

But that may be about to change.

Dr. Wiley and his colleagues at Duke recently reported that they’d developed the first gel-based cartilage substitute even stronger and more durable than the real thing.

By attaching their hydrogel to a titanium backing to help stick it in place, they hope to repair damaged cartilage “much like a dentist fills a cavity” long before surgery is necessary.

They too have partnered with industry to bring their hydrogel to market – starting with knees.

“Ultimately, the goal is to do any joint – hips, ankles, fingers, and toes,” Dr. Wiley said. 

At the University of Toronto, chemist Karina Carneiro, PhD, and dentist Christopher McCulloch, DDS, are also thinking big.

In a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a hydrogel, designed by Dr. Carneiro and made of DNA, that can be injected, migrate to a defect in bone – an irreparable break, hole from surgery, or jawbone withered by age – and fill in the gap like putty. But not only does it patch the hole, it prompts the bone to regenerate. 

In rats with holes in their skulls due to surgery, they found that the treatment did not work as well as the existing gold standard for repairing holes in bone – grafting bone from elsewhere in the body. But it did work.

“These are very early days for DNA hydrogels,” cautioned Dr. McCulloch, a study coauthor and professor in the Faculty of Dentistry, noting that it will likely be a decade or more before such technology could be available to patients. “But there is the potential that DNA hydrogel could someday grow bone without having to have highly invasive surgical procedures. That’s a significant advancement.”
 

A sci-fi future

Perhaps the wildest, and weirdest, potential applications of hydrogels come in the realm of human-machine interaction.

Numerous companies are already dabbling in neural prosthetic or brain computer interfaces that might someday, for instance, let someone who is paralyzed and can’t speak write on a laptop using their thoughts.

The spoon-in-the-Jell-O problem has been a major stumbling block.

But Dr. Tringides, who recently earned her PhD in biophysics from Harvard, is working on it.

She and her team have developed a seaweed-based hydrogel loaded with tiny flecks of nanomaterials that can not only meld nicely into squishy brain tissue but also conduct electricity.

Within a decade, she says, this could replace the clunky platinum metal discs used for electrocorticography – recording electrical activity in the brain to identify where seizures start or doing precise brain surgery.

In 30 to 50 years? Let your imagination run wild.

“I’m a skeptic. I like to take research step by step,” she said. “But things are definitely progressing in an interesting direction.”
 

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

Imagine a day when a simple injection prompts a broken bone to heal. When tiny, ingestible devices linger in the body, unnoticed, tracking our health or delivering life-saving medications. When brain and heart implants mesh with flesh so seamlessly that the body thinks they’ve been there all along.

These are the dreams of materials scientists who have toiled for decades to mimic the complex architecture of the human body in hopes of replacing broken parts or treating disease.

The problem, say bioengineers, is that most replacement and corrective parts – from prosthetics to pacemakers – are made of hard, dry, lifeless materials, like metal or plastic, while biological tissue is soft, wet, and living. 

The body knows the difference and tends to reject imitations.

Enter hydrogels, three-dimensional networks of molecules swollen with – by definition – water. 

First described in 1960 by creators of soft contact lenses, these weird, shape-shifting substances are able to morph from liquid to solid to a squishy in-between. (Early, simple uses include hair gel or Jell-O.). Slow to gain attention, growing to just 1,000 studies published by 1982, they’ve become the subject of intense study recently, with 100,000 papers published by 2020, and 3,800 already this year alone.

As chemists, biologists, and engineers begin to work more with one another and with medical doctors, the burgeoning hydrogel field is poised to transform the way we take medication and treat worn-out joints and pave the way for a seemingly sci-fi future in which organs, including brains, can interact directly with machines.

“We are, essentially, hydrogels,” said Benjamin Wiley, PhD, a chemistry professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “As people develop new hydrogels that more closely match the tissues in our body, we’ll be able to treat a whole host of ailments we couldn’t treat before.”
 

From contact lenses to brain implants

Put simply, a hydrogel is like a mesh bag of water. 

The mesh is made of polymers, or spaghetti-like strands of molecules, stitched together in a repeating pattern and swollen with H₂O, much like the way 3D matrixes in our body surround, support, and give structure to our cells and tissues.

“Imagine a soccer net, with all of these long fibers woven together to create the net,” said Eric Appel, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

While the broader category of “gels” could be filled with anything, including chemical solvents, water is the key ingredient that sets hydrogels apart, making them ideal for, as some scientists put it, “merging humans and machines.”

Human bones are about 25% water, while muscles hover around 70% and the brain is 85%. The precious liquid plays a host of critical roles, from shuttling nutrients in and waste out to helping cells talk to each other. 

Lab-made hydrogels can be loaded with cargo (like a ball in the net), including cells or drugs that help mimic some of those functions.

Hydrogels are soft and pliable like flesh. So, if used in implants, they may be less likely to damage surrounding tissue.

“Think about a metal spoon in your bowl of pudding. As you’re shaking the bowl, the spoon doesn’t stay in place, and you get scarring around the spoon,” said Christina Tringides, PhD, a materials scientist who studies neural engineering. That, she says, is exactly what happens to brain implants when patients breathe or move. “It’s a mechanical mismatch. But with hydrogels, you could get perfect mechanical matching.”

Hydrogels also tend to be nontoxic, so the immune system may be less likely to attack them as foreign bodies.

All this has made hydrogels the new darling of the bioengineering world. 

“There has been an absolute explosion of interest in these materials,” Dr. Appel said.
 

Smarter drug delivery and ingestible electronics

Early versions of hydrogels were thick and gooey, making it hard to get them inside the body.

“Think of a block of Jell-O. You couldn’t inject something like that,” Dr. Appel said.

But Dr. Appel, whose lab develops new drug delivery systems, has been tinkering with gel formulas for years in hopes that these high-tech globs could someday ferry timed-release drugs to just the right spot in the body.

His new hydrogels start as fully formed gels (which help preserve the drug contents) inside a syringe. But once the plunger is pushed, they magically shape-shift to a liquid thin enough to flow easily through a standard needle. Upon exit, they immediately reform into gels, protecting the inherent cargo from degrading.

This could be a game changer at a time when many cutting-edge drugs – think Humira for arthritis or Ozempic for type 2 diabetes – are made of quickly degrading proteins too large and complex to simply jam into a pill. Instead, they must be injected, often frequently.

“Because the gel takes months to dissolve, it slowly delivers the drug over time,” Dr. Appel said. “You could conceivably go from a shot once a week to once every 4 months.”

Such slow-release hydrogels could make vaccines last longer, in turn teaching the body to better resist emerging virus variants, and deliver tumor-busting therapies more precisely, said Dr. Appel, who has formed a startup and hopes to fast-track the first hydrogel drug delivery system to clinical trials within a few years.

Meanwhile, another team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has taken a different approach, developing a standard-sized ingestible hydrogel pill that swells up like a puffer fish in the stomach, lasting a month and slowly releasing drugs all the while. To remove the pill, a patient simply drinks a salt-based solution that shrivels the ping-pong ball–sized device so it can be passed out of the body.

In a paper in Nature Communications, the scientists showed the puffer fish pill could also be loaded with tiny cameras or monitors to track conditions like ulcers or cancer.

“The dream is to have a Jell-O-like smart pill that, once swallowed, stays in the stomach and monitors the patient’s health,” said Xuanhe Zhao, PhD, a researcher on the project and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.
 

Building joints and regrowing bones

Since the 1970s, researchers have mulled using hydrogels to replace human cartilage, a remarkably strong and flexible tissue made of about 90% water but able to withstand the weight of a car on an area about the size of a coin.

Until recently, those efforts have largely failed. Meaning when knee cartilage wears down, things like cartilage transplants, drilling holes to stimulate new growth, or total joint replacements – all of which require lengthy rehab – are the only options. 

But that may be about to change.

Dr. Wiley and his colleagues at Duke recently reported that they’d developed the first gel-based cartilage substitute even stronger and more durable than the real thing.

By attaching their hydrogel to a titanium backing to help stick it in place, they hope to repair damaged cartilage “much like a dentist fills a cavity” long before surgery is necessary.

They too have partnered with industry to bring their hydrogel to market – starting with knees.

“Ultimately, the goal is to do any joint – hips, ankles, fingers, and toes,” Dr. Wiley said. 

At the University of Toronto, chemist Karina Carneiro, PhD, and dentist Christopher McCulloch, DDS, are also thinking big.

In a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a hydrogel, designed by Dr. Carneiro and made of DNA, that can be injected, migrate to a defect in bone – an irreparable break, hole from surgery, or jawbone withered by age – and fill in the gap like putty. But not only does it patch the hole, it prompts the bone to regenerate. 

In rats with holes in their skulls due to surgery, they found that the treatment did not work as well as the existing gold standard for repairing holes in bone – grafting bone from elsewhere in the body. But it did work.

“These are very early days for DNA hydrogels,” cautioned Dr. McCulloch, a study coauthor and professor in the Faculty of Dentistry, noting that it will likely be a decade or more before such technology could be available to patients. “But there is the potential that DNA hydrogel could someday grow bone without having to have highly invasive surgical procedures. That’s a significant advancement.”
 

A sci-fi future

Perhaps the wildest, and weirdest, potential applications of hydrogels come in the realm of human-machine interaction.

Numerous companies are already dabbling in neural prosthetic or brain computer interfaces that might someday, for instance, let someone who is paralyzed and can’t speak write on a laptop using their thoughts.

The spoon-in-the-Jell-O problem has been a major stumbling block.

But Dr. Tringides, who recently earned her PhD in biophysics from Harvard, is working on it.

She and her team have developed a seaweed-based hydrogel loaded with tiny flecks of nanomaterials that can not only meld nicely into squishy brain tissue but also conduct electricity.

Within a decade, she says, this could replace the clunky platinum metal discs used for electrocorticography – recording electrical activity in the brain to identify where seizures start or doing precise brain surgery.

In 30 to 50 years? Let your imagination run wild.

“I’m a skeptic. I like to take research step by step,” she said. “But things are definitely progressing in an interesting direction.”
 

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

Imagine a day when a simple injection prompts a broken bone to heal. When tiny, ingestible devices linger in the body, unnoticed, tracking our health or delivering life-saving medications. When brain and heart implants mesh with flesh so seamlessly that the body thinks they’ve been there all along.

These are the dreams of materials scientists who have toiled for decades to mimic the complex architecture of the human body in hopes of replacing broken parts or treating disease.

The problem, say bioengineers, is that most replacement and corrective parts – from prosthetics to pacemakers – are made of hard, dry, lifeless materials, like metal or plastic, while biological tissue is soft, wet, and living. 

The body knows the difference and tends to reject imitations.

Enter hydrogels, three-dimensional networks of molecules swollen with – by definition – water. 

First described in 1960 by creators of soft contact lenses, these weird, shape-shifting substances are able to morph from liquid to solid to a squishy in-between. (Early, simple uses include hair gel or Jell-O.). Slow to gain attention, growing to just 1,000 studies published by 1982, they’ve become the subject of intense study recently, with 100,000 papers published by 2020, and 3,800 already this year alone.

As chemists, biologists, and engineers begin to work more with one another and with medical doctors, the burgeoning hydrogel field is poised to transform the way we take medication and treat worn-out joints and pave the way for a seemingly sci-fi future in which organs, including brains, can interact directly with machines.

“We are, essentially, hydrogels,” said Benjamin Wiley, PhD, a chemistry professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “As people develop new hydrogels that more closely match the tissues in our body, we’ll be able to treat a whole host of ailments we couldn’t treat before.”
 

From contact lenses to brain implants

Put simply, a hydrogel is like a mesh bag of water. 

The mesh is made of polymers, or spaghetti-like strands of molecules, stitched together in a repeating pattern and swollen with H₂O, much like the way 3D matrixes in our body surround, support, and give structure to our cells and tissues.

“Imagine a soccer net, with all of these long fibers woven together to create the net,” said Eric Appel, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

While the broader category of “gels” could be filled with anything, including chemical solvents, water is the key ingredient that sets hydrogels apart, making them ideal for, as some scientists put it, “merging humans and machines.”

Human bones are about 25% water, while muscles hover around 70% and the brain is 85%. The precious liquid plays a host of critical roles, from shuttling nutrients in and waste out to helping cells talk to each other. 

Lab-made hydrogels can be loaded with cargo (like a ball in the net), including cells or drugs that help mimic some of those functions.

Hydrogels are soft and pliable like flesh. So, if used in implants, they may be less likely to damage surrounding tissue.

“Think about a metal spoon in your bowl of pudding. As you’re shaking the bowl, the spoon doesn’t stay in place, and you get scarring around the spoon,” said Christina Tringides, PhD, a materials scientist who studies neural engineering. That, she says, is exactly what happens to brain implants when patients breathe or move. “It’s a mechanical mismatch. But with hydrogels, you could get perfect mechanical matching.”

Hydrogels also tend to be nontoxic, so the immune system may be less likely to attack them as foreign bodies.

All this has made hydrogels the new darling of the bioengineering world. 

“There has been an absolute explosion of interest in these materials,” Dr. Appel said.
 

Smarter drug delivery and ingestible electronics

Early versions of hydrogels were thick and gooey, making it hard to get them inside the body.

“Think of a block of Jell-O. You couldn’t inject something like that,” Dr. Appel said.

But Dr. Appel, whose lab develops new drug delivery systems, has been tinkering with gel formulas for years in hopes that these high-tech globs could someday ferry timed-release drugs to just the right spot in the body.

His new hydrogels start as fully formed gels (which help preserve the drug contents) inside a syringe. But once the plunger is pushed, they magically shape-shift to a liquid thin enough to flow easily through a standard needle. Upon exit, they immediately reform into gels, protecting the inherent cargo from degrading.

This could be a game changer at a time when many cutting-edge drugs – think Humira for arthritis or Ozempic for type 2 diabetes – are made of quickly degrading proteins too large and complex to simply jam into a pill. Instead, they must be injected, often frequently.

“Because the gel takes months to dissolve, it slowly delivers the drug over time,” Dr. Appel said. “You could conceivably go from a shot once a week to once every 4 months.”

Such slow-release hydrogels could make vaccines last longer, in turn teaching the body to better resist emerging virus variants, and deliver tumor-busting therapies more precisely, said Dr. Appel, who has formed a startup and hopes to fast-track the first hydrogel drug delivery system to clinical trials within a few years.

Meanwhile, another team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has taken a different approach, developing a standard-sized ingestible hydrogel pill that swells up like a puffer fish in the stomach, lasting a month and slowly releasing drugs all the while. To remove the pill, a patient simply drinks a salt-based solution that shrivels the ping-pong ball–sized device so it can be passed out of the body.

In a paper in Nature Communications, the scientists showed the puffer fish pill could also be loaded with tiny cameras or monitors to track conditions like ulcers or cancer.

“The dream is to have a Jell-O-like smart pill that, once swallowed, stays in the stomach and monitors the patient’s health,” said Xuanhe Zhao, PhD, a researcher on the project and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.
 

Building joints and regrowing bones

Since the 1970s, researchers have mulled using hydrogels to replace human cartilage, a remarkably strong and flexible tissue made of about 90% water but able to withstand the weight of a car on an area about the size of a coin.

Until recently, those efforts have largely failed. Meaning when knee cartilage wears down, things like cartilage transplants, drilling holes to stimulate new growth, or total joint replacements – all of which require lengthy rehab – are the only options. 

But that may be about to change.

Dr. Wiley and his colleagues at Duke recently reported that they’d developed the first gel-based cartilage substitute even stronger and more durable than the real thing.

By attaching their hydrogel to a titanium backing to help stick it in place, they hope to repair damaged cartilage “much like a dentist fills a cavity” long before surgery is necessary.

They too have partnered with industry to bring their hydrogel to market – starting with knees.

“Ultimately, the goal is to do any joint – hips, ankles, fingers, and toes,” Dr. Wiley said. 

At the University of Toronto, chemist Karina Carneiro, PhD, and dentist Christopher McCulloch, DDS, are also thinking big.

In a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a hydrogel, designed by Dr. Carneiro and made of DNA, that can be injected, migrate to a defect in bone – an irreparable break, hole from surgery, or jawbone withered by age – and fill in the gap like putty. But not only does it patch the hole, it prompts the bone to regenerate. 

In rats with holes in their skulls due to surgery, they found that the treatment did not work as well as the existing gold standard for repairing holes in bone – grafting bone from elsewhere in the body. But it did work.

“These are very early days for DNA hydrogels,” cautioned Dr. McCulloch, a study coauthor and professor in the Faculty of Dentistry, noting that it will likely be a decade or more before such technology could be available to patients. “But there is the potential that DNA hydrogel could someday grow bone without having to have highly invasive surgical procedures. That’s a significant advancement.”
 

A sci-fi future

Perhaps the wildest, and weirdest, potential applications of hydrogels come in the realm of human-machine interaction.

Numerous companies are already dabbling in neural prosthetic or brain computer interfaces that might someday, for instance, let someone who is paralyzed and can’t speak write on a laptop using their thoughts.

The spoon-in-the-Jell-O problem has been a major stumbling block.

But Dr. Tringides, who recently earned her PhD in biophysics from Harvard, is working on it.

She and her team have developed a seaweed-based hydrogel loaded with tiny flecks of nanomaterials that can not only meld nicely into squishy brain tissue but also conduct electricity.

Within a decade, she says, this could replace the clunky platinum metal discs used for electrocorticography – recording electrical activity in the brain to identify where seizures start or doing precise brain surgery.

In 30 to 50 years? Let your imagination run wild.

“I’m a skeptic. I like to take research step by step,” she said. “But things are definitely progressing in an interesting direction.”
 

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

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A once-daily, oral dose of the investigational drug cenerimod, developed for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus, has shown a greater response rate among individuals with more severe disease, according to data presented at an international congress on SLE.

Cenerimod is a potent, highly-selective sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1) modulator with attenuated calcium signaling, which targets an important signaling molecule in immunity and cell migration, said rheumatologist Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital and St. Luke’s Medical Center in Manila, Philippines.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A once-daily, oral dose of the investigational drug cenerimod, developed for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus, has shown a greater response rate among individuals with more severe disease, according to data presented at an international congress on SLE.

Cenerimod is a potent, highly-selective sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1) modulator with attenuated calcium signaling, which targets an important signaling molecule in immunity and cell migration, said rheumatologist Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital and St. Luke’s Medical Center in Manila, Philippines.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A once-daily, oral dose of the investigational drug cenerimod, developed for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus, has shown a greater response rate among individuals with more severe disease, according to data presented at an international congress on SLE.

Cenerimod is a potent, highly-selective sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1) modulator with attenuated calcium signaling, which targets an important signaling molecule in immunity and cell migration, said rheumatologist Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital and St. Luke’s Medical Center in Manila, Philippines.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Regular testing of hydroxychloroquine levels in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – especially those who are experiencing a disease flare – could help to identify patients who are not taking their treatment and are at risk of worse outcomes.

Data presented at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus showed that 7.3% of patients with SLE are severely nonadherent to their medication and have a higher risk of flare, early damage, and mortality.

Rheumatologist Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine at Cochin Hospital, Paris, presented data from 660 patients enrolled in the international longitudinal SLICC Inception Cohort, who had all been on hydroxychloroquine therapy for at least 3 months at baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Patients’ serum hydroxychloroquine levels were measured at baseline and follow-up, and severe nonadherence was defined as below 106 ng/mL for those on 400 mg/day or 53 ng/mL for those on 200 mg/day.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said that those thresholds were chosen based on earlier work that analyzed the blood concentration of hydroxychloroquine in a group of patients and identified a group with very low concentrations corresponding to severe nonadherence.

“Since then, it has been reproduced by others with the same threshold,” she said. “When you have very low levels of hydroxychloroquine in their blood, you know that your patients don’t take their treatment.”

In the present study, the 7.3% of patients who met the criteria for severe nonadherence had a significant 3.3-fold higher risk of disease flare within a year of enrollment than did those who were adherent. They also had significantly higher mortality at 5 years after enrollment.

While the study didn’t show a significant difference in the level of damage at 5 years – defined as a worsening of their SLICC damage index – Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said they saw significantly greater damage occurring at 1, 2, and 3 years after enrollment among those who were severely nonadherent.

The challenge with recognizing these nonadherent patients is that they have no obvious differences at baseline from those who are adherent, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said. The rates of nonadherence were similar regardless of what dose the patient was on, their ethnicity, gender, education level, or other demographic variables.

“I believe strongly that there is a benefit of testing hydroxychloroquine levels in the blood or serum to detect severe nonadherence,” she said.

At Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau’s clinic, patients’ hydroxychloroquine levels are tested at every clinic visit, she said in an interview, and especially if they are experiencing a disease flare. “We want to know if the flare is because the patient is not taking the treatment or if it’s because the treatment is not effective, which is very different in terms of management,” she said. She recommended waiting at least 1 month after patients start treatment before measuring their hydroxychloroquine levels.

As to why some patients choose to stop taking their medication, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said sometimes it was because patients were worried about side effects, but others were also unclear about why they needed to keep taking hydroxychloroquine.

“They think steroids are effective because when they take it they are better, but they don’t see the effect of hydroxychloroquine,” she said. “You have to explain that it doesn’t work the same.”

Commenting on the findings, session chair Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data show that severe nonadherence does have prognostic significance. “Many patients with SLE have low-grade disease or inflammation in the blood vessels that may not be clinically apparent and which hydroxychloroquine can help, so it might be wise to routinely get blood levels,” she said.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau reported no relevant financial relationships apart from unrestricted institutional research grants from UCB and Roche.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Regular testing of hydroxychloroquine levels in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – especially those who are experiencing a disease flare – could help to identify patients who are not taking their treatment and are at risk of worse outcomes.

Data presented at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus showed that 7.3% of patients with SLE are severely nonadherent to their medication and have a higher risk of flare, early damage, and mortality.

Rheumatologist Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine at Cochin Hospital, Paris, presented data from 660 patients enrolled in the international longitudinal SLICC Inception Cohort, who had all been on hydroxychloroquine therapy for at least 3 months at baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Patients’ serum hydroxychloroquine levels were measured at baseline and follow-up, and severe nonadherence was defined as below 106 ng/mL for those on 400 mg/day or 53 ng/mL for those on 200 mg/day.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said that those thresholds were chosen based on earlier work that analyzed the blood concentration of hydroxychloroquine in a group of patients and identified a group with very low concentrations corresponding to severe nonadherence.

“Since then, it has been reproduced by others with the same threshold,” she said. “When you have very low levels of hydroxychloroquine in their blood, you know that your patients don’t take their treatment.”

In the present study, the 7.3% of patients who met the criteria for severe nonadherence had a significant 3.3-fold higher risk of disease flare within a year of enrollment than did those who were adherent. They also had significantly higher mortality at 5 years after enrollment.

While the study didn’t show a significant difference in the level of damage at 5 years – defined as a worsening of their SLICC damage index – Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said they saw significantly greater damage occurring at 1, 2, and 3 years after enrollment among those who were severely nonadherent.

The challenge with recognizing these nonadherent patients is that they have no obvious differences at baseline from those who are adherent, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said. The rates of nonadherence were similar regardless of what dose the patient was on, their ethnicity, gender, education level, or other demographic variables.

“I believe strongly that there is a benefit of testing hydroxychloroquine levels in the blood or serum to detect severe nonadherence,” she said.

At Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau’s clinic, patients’ hydroxychloroquine levels are tested at every clinic visit, she said in an interview, and especially if they are experiencing a disease flare. “We want to know if the flare is because the patient is not taking the treatment or if it’s because the treatment is not effective, which is very different in terms of management,” she said. She recommended waiting at least 1 month after patients start treatment before measuring their hydroxychloroquine levels.

As to why some patients choose to stop taking their medication, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said sometimes it was because patients were worried about side effects, but others were also unclear about why they needed to keep taking hydroxychloroquine.

“They think steroids are effective because when they take it they are better, but they don’t see the effect of hydroxychloroquine,” she said. “You have to explain that it doesn’t work the same.”

Commenting on the findings, session chair Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data show that severe nonadherence does have prognostic significance. “Many patients with SLE have low-grade disease or inflammation in the blood vessels that may not be clinically apparent and which hydroxychloroquine can help, so it might be wise to routinely get blood levels,” she said.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau reported no relevant financial relationships apart from unrestricted institutional research grants from UCB and Roche.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Regular testing of hydroxychloroquine levels in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – especially those who are experiencing a disease flare – could help to identify patients who are not taking their treatment and are at risk of worse outcomes.

Data presented at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus showed that 7.3% of patients with SLE are severely nonadherent to their medication and have a higher risk of flare, early damage, and mortality.

Rheumatologist Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine at Cochin Hospital, Paris, presented data from 660 patients enrolled in the international longitudinal SLICC Inception Cohort, who had all been on hydroxychloroquine therapy for at least 3 months at baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Patients’ serum hydroxychloroquine levels were measured at baseline and follow-up, and severe nonadherence was defined as below 106 ng/mL for those on 400 mg/day or 53 ng/mL for those on 200 mg/day.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said that those thresholds were chosen based on earlier work that analyzed the blood concentration of hydroxychloroquine in a group of patients and identified a group with very low concentrations corresponding to severe nonadherence.

“Since then, it has been reproduced by others with the same threshold,” she said. “When you have very low levels of hydroxychloroquine in their blood, you know that your patients don’t take their treatment.”

In the present study, the 7.3% of patients who met the criteria for severe nonadherence had a significant 3.3-fold higher risk of disease flare within a year of enrollment than did those who were adherent. They also had significantly higher mortality at 5 years after enrollment.

While the study didn’t show a significant difference in the level of damage at 5 years – defined as a worsening of their SLICC damage index – Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said they saw significantly greater damage occurring at 1, 2, and 3 years after enrollment among those who were severely nonadherent.

The challenge with recognizing these nonadherent patients is that they have no obvious differences at baseline from those who are adherent, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said. The rates of nonadherence were similar regardless of what dose the patient was on, their ethnicity, gender, education level, or other demographic variables.

“I believe strongly that there is a benefit of testing hydroxychloroquine levels in the blood or serum to detect severe nonadherence,” she said.

At Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau’s clinic, patients’ hydroxychloroquine levels are tested at every clinic visit, she said in an interview, and especially if they are experiencing a disease flare. “We want to know if the flare is because the patient is not taking the treatment or if it’s because the treatment is not effective, which is very different in terms of management,” she said. She recommended waiting at least 1 month after patients start treatment before measuring their hydroxychloroquine levels.

As to why some patients choose to stop taking their medication, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said sometimes it was because patients were worried about side effects, but others were also unclear about why they needed to keep taking hydroxychloroquine.

“They think steroids are effective because when they take it they are better, but they don’t see the effect of hydroxychloroquine,” she said. “You have to explain that it doesn’t work the same.”

Commenting on the findings, session chair Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data show that severe nonadherence does have prognostic significance. “Many patients with SLE have low-grade disease or inflammation in the blood vessels that may not be clinically apparent and which hydroxychloroquine can help, so it might be wise to routinely get blood levels,” she said.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau reported no relevant financial relationships apart from unrestricted institutional research grants from UCB and Roche.