MDedge Rheumatology

More clinical guidance is needed for monitoring interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to a new commentary.

Though ILD is a leading cause of death among patients with RA, these patients are not routinely screened for ILD, the authors say, and there are currently no guidelines on how to monitor ILD progression in patients with RA.

A.Prof Frank Gaillard, Radiopaedia.org

“ILD associated with rheumatoid arthritis is a disease for which there’s been very little research done, so it’s an area of rheumatology where there are many unknowns,” lead author Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD) program at University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The commentary was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

Defining disease

One of the major unknowns is how to define the disease, she said. RA patients sometimes undergo imaging for other medical reasons, and interstitial lung abnormalities are incidentally detected. These patients can be classified as having “preclinical” or “subclinical” ILD, as they do not yet have symptoms; however, there is no consensus as to what these terms mean, the commentary authors write. “The other problem that we have with these terms is that it sometimes creates the perception that this is a nonworrisome feature of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Volkmann said, although the condition should be followed closely.

“We know we can detect imaging features of ILD in people who may not yet have symptoms, and we need to know when to define a clinically important informality that requires follow-up or treatment,” added John M. Davis III, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. He was not involved with the work.

Mayo Clinic

Dr. Volkmann proposed eliminating the prefixes “pre” and “sub” when referring to ILD. “In other connective tissue diseases, like systemic sclerosis, for example, we can use the term ‘limited’ or ‘extensive’ ILD, based on the extent of involvement of the ILD on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging,” she said. “This could potentially be something that is applied to how we classify patients with RA-ILD.”
 

Tracking ILD progression

Once ILD is identified, monitoring its progression poses challenges, as respiratory symptoms may be difficult to detect. RA patients may already be avoiding exercise because of joint pain, so they may not notice shortness of breath during physical activity, noted Jessica K. Gordon, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, in an interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the commentary. Cough is a potential symptom of ILD, but cough can also be the result of allergies, postnasal drip, or reflux, she said. Making the distinction between “preclinical” and symptomatic disease can be “complicated,” she added; “you may have to really dig.”

Hospital for Special Surgery

Additionally, there has been little research on the outcomes of patients with preclinical or subclinical ILD and clinical ILD, the commentary authors write. “It is therefore conceivable that some patients with rheumatoid arthritis diagnosed with preclinical or subclinical ILD could potentially have worse outcomes if both the rheumatoid arthritis and ILD are not monitored closely,” they note.

To better track RA-associated ILD for patients with and those without symptoms, the authors advocate for monitoring patients using pulmonary testing and CT scanning, as well as evaluating symptoms. How often these assessments should be conducted depends on the individual, they note. In her own practice, Dr. Volkmann sees patients every 3 months to evaluate their symptoms and conduct pulmonary function tests (PFTs). For patients early in the course of ILD, she orders HRCT imaging once per year.

For Dr. Davis, the frequency of follow-up depends on the severity of ILD. “For minimally symptomatic patients without compromised lung function, we would generally follow annually. For patients with symptomatic ILD on stable therapy, we may monitor every 6 months. For patients with active/progressive ILD, we would generally be following at least every 1-3 months,” he said.

Screening and future research

While there is no evidence to recommend screening patients for ILD using CT, there are certain risk factors for ILD in RA patients, including a history of smoking, male sex, and high RA disease activity despite antirheumatic treatment, Dr. Volkmann said. In both of their practices, Dr. Davis and Dr. Volkmann screen with RA via HRCT and PFTs for ILD for patients with known risk factors that predispose them to the lung condition and/or for patients who report respiratory symptoms.

National Jewish Health

“We still don’t have an algorithm [for screening patients], and that is a desperate need in this field,” added Joshua J. Solomon, MD, a pulmonologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, whose research focuses on RA-associated ILD. While recommendations state that all patients with scleroderma should be screened with CT, ILD incidence is lower among patients with RA, and thus these screening recommendations need to be narrowed, he said. But more research is needed to better fine tune recommendations, he said; “The only thing you can do is give some expert consensus until there are good data.”

Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Forbius, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus. Dr. Gordon, Dr. Davis, and Dr. Solomon report no relevant financial relationships.

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

More clinical guidance is needed for monitoring interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to a new commentary.

Though ILD is a leading cause of death among patients with RA, these patients are not routinely screened for ILD, the authors say, and there are currently no guidelines on how to monitor ILD progression in patients with RA.

A.Prof Frank Gaillard, Radiopaedia.org

“ILD associated with rheumatoid arthritis is a disease for which there’s been very little research done, so it’s an area of rheumatology where there are many unknowns,” lead author Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD) program at University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The commentary was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

Defining disease

One of the major unknowns is how to define the disease, she said. RA patients sometimes undergo imaging for other medical reasons, and interstitial lung abnormalities are incidentally detected. These patients can be classified as having “preclinical” or “subclinical” ILD, as they do not yet have symptoms; however, there is no consensus as to what these terms mean, the commentary authors write. “The other problem that we have with these terms is that it sometimes creates the perception that this is a nonworrisome feature of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Volkmann said, although the condition should be followed closely.

“We know we can detect imaging features of ILD in people who may not yet have symptoms, and we need to know when to define a clinically important informality that requires follow-up or treatment,” added John M. Davis III, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. He was not involved with the work.

Mayo Clinic

Dr. Volkmann proposed eliminating the prefixes “pre” and “sub” when referring to ILD. “In other connective tissue diseases, like systemic sclerosis, for example, we can use the term ‘limited’ or ‘extensive’ ILD, based on the extent of involvement of the ILD on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging,” she said. “This could potentially be something that is applied to how we classify patients with RA-ILD.”
 

Tracking ILD progression

Once ILD is identified, monitoring its progression poses challenges, as respiratory symptoms may be difficult to detect. RA patients may already be avoiding exercise because of joint pain, so they may not notice shortness of breath during physical activity, noted Jessica K. Gordon, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, in an interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the commentary. Cough is a potential symptom of ILD, but cough can also be the result of allergies, postnasal drip, or reflux, she said. Making the distinction between “preclinical” and symptomatic disease can be “complicated,” she added; “you may have to really dig.”

Hospital for Special Surgery

Additionally, there has been little research on the outcomes of patients with preclinical or subclinical ILD and clinical ILD, the commentary authors write. “It is therefore conceivable that some patients with rheumatoid arthritis diagnosed with preclinical or subclinical ILD could potentially have worse outcomes if both the rheumatoid arthritis and ILD are not monitored closely,” they note.

To better track RA-associated ILD for patients with and those without symptoms, the authors advocate for monitoring patients using pulmonary testing and CT scanning, as well as evaluating symptoms. How often these assessments should be conducted depends on the individual, they note. In her own practice, Dr. Volkmann sees patients every 3 months to evaluate their symptoms and conduct pulmonary function tests (PFTs). For patients early in the course of ILD, she orders HRCT imaging once per year.

For Dr. Davis, the frequency of follow-up depends on the severity of ILD. “For minimally symptomatic patients without compromised lung function, we would generally follow annually. For patients with symptomatic ILD on stable therapy, we may monitor every 6 months. For patients with active/progressive ILD, we would generally be following at least every 1-3 months,” he said.

Screening and future research

While there is no evidence to recommend screening patients for ILD using CT, there are certain risk factors for ILD in RA patients, including a history of smoking, male sex, and high RA disease activity despite antirheumatic treatment, Dr. Volkmann said. In both of their practices, Dr. Davis and Dr. Volkmann screen with RA via HRCT and PFTs for ILD for patients with known risk factors that predispose them to the lung condition and/or for patients who report respiratory symptoms.

National Jewish Health

“We still don’t have an algorithm [for screening patients], and that is a desperate need in this field,” added Joshua J. Solomon, MD, a pulmonologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, whose research focuses on RA-associated ILD. While recommendations state that all patients with scleroderma should be screened with CT, ILD incidence is lower among patients with RA, and thus these screening recommendations need to be narrowed, he said. But more research is needed to better fine tune recommendations, he said; “The only thing you can do is give some expert consensus until there are good data.”

Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Forbius, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus. Dr. Gordon, Dr. Davis, and Dr. Solomon report no relevant financial relationships.

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

More clinical guidance is needed for monitoring interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to a new commentary.

Though ILD is a leading cause of death among patients with RA, these patients are not routinely screened for ILD, the authors say, and there are currently no guidelines on how to monitor ILD progression in patients with RA.

A.Prof Frank Gaillard, Radiopaedia.org

“ILD associated with rheumatoid arthritis is a disease for which there’s been very little research done, so it’s an area of rheumatology where there are many unknowns,” lead author Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD) program at University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The commentary was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

Defining disease

One of the major unknowns is how to define the disease, she said. RA patients sometimes undergo imaging for other medical reasons, and interstitial lung abnormalities are incidentally detected. These patients can be classified as having “preclinical” or “subclinical” ILD, as they do not yet have symptoms; however, there is no consensus as to what these terms mean, the commentary authors write. “The other problem that we have with these terms is that it sometimes creates the perception that this is a nonworrisome feature of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Volkmann said, although the condition should be followed closely.

“We know we can detect imaging features of ILD in people who may not yet have symptoms, and we need to know when to define a clinically important informality that requires follow-up or treatment,” added John M. Davis III, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. He was not involved with the work.

Mayo Clinic

Dr. Volkmann proposed eliminating the prefixes “pre” and “sub” when referring to ILD. “In other connective tissue diseases, like systemic sclerosis, for example, we can use the term ‘limited’ or ‘extensive’ ILD, based on the extent of involvement of the ILD on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging,” she said. “This could potentially be something that is applied to how we classify patients with RA-ILD.”
 

Tracking ILD progression

Once ILD is identified, monitoring its progression poses challenges, as respiratory symptoms may be difficult to detect. RA patients may already be avoiding exercise because of joint pain, so they may not notice shortness of breath during physical activity, noted Jessica K. Gordon, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, in an interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the commentary. Cough is a potential symptom of ILD, but cough can also be the result of allergies, postnasal drip, or reflux, she said. Making the distinction between “preclinical” and symptomatic disease can be “complicated,” she added; “you may have to really dig.”

Hospital for Special Surgery

Additionally, there has been little research on the outcomes of patients with preclinical or subclinical ILD and clinical ILD, the commentary authors write. “It is therefore conceivable that some patients with rheumatoid arthritis diagnosed with preclinical or subclinical ILD could potentially have worse outcomes if both the rheumatoid arthritis and ILD are not monitored closely,” they note.

To better track RA-associated ILD for patients with and those without symptoms, the authors advocate for monitoring patients using pulmonary testing and CT scanning, as well as evaluating symptoms. How often these assessments should be conducted depends on the individual, they note. In her own practice, Dr. Volkmann sees patients every 3 months to evaluate their symptoms and conduct pulmonary function tests (PFTs). For patients early in the course of ILD, she orders HRCT imaging once per year.

For Dr. Davis, the frequency of follow-up depends on the severity of ILD. “For minimally symptomatic patients without compromised lung function, we would generally follow annually. For patients with symptomatic ILD on stable therapy, we may monitor every 6 months. For patients with active/progressive ILD, we would generally be following at least every 1-3 months,” he said.

Screening and future research

While there is no evidence to recommend screening patients for ILD using CT, there are certain risk factors for ILD in RA patients, including a history of smoking, male sex, and high RA disease activity despite antirheumatic treatment, Dr. Volkmann said. In both of their practices, Dr. Davis and Dr. Volkmann screen with RA via HRCT and PFTs for ILD for patients with known risk factors that predispose them to the lung condition and/or for patients who report respiratory symptoms.

National Jewish Health

“We still don’t have an algorithm [for screening patients], and that is a desperate need in this field,” added Joshua J. Solomon, MD, a pulmonologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, whose research focuses on RA-associated ILD. While recommendations state that all patients with scleroderma should be screened with CT, ILD incidence is lower among patients with RA, and thus these screening recommendations need to be narrowed, he said. But more research is needed to better fine tune recommendations, he said; “The only thing you can do is give some expert consensus until there are good data.”

Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Forbius, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus. Dr. Gordon, Dr. Davis, and Dr. Solomon report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

Muscle relaxants and NSAIDs effectively improved symptoms of acute low back pain after 1 week of treatment, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Acute low back pain (LBP) remains a common cause of disability worldwide, with a high socioeconomic burden, write Alice Baroncini, MD, of RWTH University Hospital, Aachen, Germany, and colleagues.

In an analysis published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, a team of investigators from Germany examined which nonopioid drugs are best for treating LBP.

The researchers identified 18 studies totaling 3,478 patients with acute low back pain of less than 12 weeks’ duration. They selected studies that only investigated the lumbar spine, and studies involving opioids were excluded. The mean age of the patients across all the studies was 42.5 years, and 54% were women. The mean duration of symptoms before treatment was 15.1 days.

Overall, muscle relaxants and NSAIDs demonstrated effectiveness in reducing pain and disability for acute LBP patients after about 1 week of use.

In addition, studies of a combination of NSAIDs and paracetamol (also known as acetaminophen) showed a greater improvement than NSAIDs alone, but paracetamol/acetaminophen alone had no significant impact on LBP.

Most patients with acute LBP experience spontaneous recovery and reduction of symptoms, thus the real impact of most medications is uncertain, the researchers write in their discussion. The lack of a placebo effect in the selected studies reinforces the hypothesis that nonopioid medications improve LBP symptoms, they say.

However, “while this work only focuses on the pharmacological management of acute LBP, it is fundamental to highlight that the use of drugs should always be a second-line strategy once other nonpharmacological, noninvasive therapies have proved to be insufficient,” the researchers write.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to distinguish among different NSAID classes, the inability to conduct a subanalysis of the best drug or treatment protocol for a given drug class, and the short follow-up period for the included studies, the researchers note.

More research is needed to address the effects of different drugs on LBP recurrence, they add.

However, the results support the current opinion that NSAIDs can be effectively used for LBP, strengthened by the large number of studies and relatively low risk of bias, the researchers conclude.

The current study addresses a common cause of morbidity among patients and highlights alternatives to opioid analgesics for its management, Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

Dr. Pal said he was not surprised by the results. “The findings of the study mirror prior studies,” he said. “However, the lack of benefit of paracetamol alone needs to be highlighted as important to clinical practice.”

A key message for clinicians is the role of NSAIDs in LBP, Dr. Pal said. “NSAIDs, either alone or in combination with paracetamol or myorelaxants, can be effective therapy for select patients with acute LBP.” However, “further research is needed to better identify which patients would derive most benefit from this approach,” he said.

Other research needs include more evidence to better understand the appropriate duration of therapy, given the potential for adverse effects with chronic NSAID use, Dr. Pal said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Muscle relaxants and NSAIDs effectively improved symptoms of acute low back pain after 1 week of treatment, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Acute low back pain (LBP) remains a common cause of disability worldwide, with a high socioeconomic burden, write Alice Baroncini, MD, of RWTH University Hospital, Aachen, Germany, and colleagues.

In an analysis published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, a team of investigators from Germany examined which nonopioid drugs are best for treating LBP.

The researchers identified 18 studies totaling 3,478 patients with acute low back pain of less than 12 weeks’ duration. They selected studies that only investigated the lumbar spine, and studies involving opioids were excluded. The mean age of the patients across all the studies was 42.5 years, and 54% were women. The mean duration of symptoms before treatment was 15.1 days.

Overall, muscle relaxants and NSAIDs demonstrated effectiveness in reducing pain and disability for acute LBP patients after about 1 week of use.

In addition, studies of a combination of NSAIDs and paracetamol (also known as acetaminophen) showed a greater improvement than NSAIDs alone, but paracetamol/acetaminophen alone had no significant impact on LBP.

Most patients with acute LBP experience spontaneous recovery and reduction of symptoms, thus the real impact of most medications is uncertain, the researchers write in their discussion. The lack of a placebo effect in the selected studies reinforces the hypothesis that nonopioid medications improve LBP symptoms, they say.

However, “while this work only focuses on the pharmacological management of acute LBP, it is fundamental to highlight that the use of drugs should always be a second-line strategy once other nonpharmacological, noninvasive therapies have proved to be insufficient,” the researchers write.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to distinguish among different NSAID classes, the inability to conduct a subanalysis of the best drug or treatment protocol for a given drug class, and the short follow-up period for the included studies, the researchers note.

More research is needed to address the effects of different drugs on LBP recurrence, they add.

However, the results support the current opinion that NSAIDs can be effectively used for LBP, strengthened by the large number of studies and relatively low risk of bias, the researchers conclude.

The current study addresses a common cause of morbidity among patients and highlights alternatives to opioid analgesics for its management, Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

Dr. Pal said he was not surprised by the results. “The findings of the study mirror prior studies,” he said. “However, the lack of benefit of paracetamol alone needs to be highlighted as important to clinical practice.”

A key message for clinicians is the role of NSAIDs in LBP, Dr. Pal said. “NSAIDs, either alone or in combination with paracetamol or myorelaxants, can be effective therapy for select patients with acute LBP.” However, “further research is needed to better identify which patients would derive most benefit from this approach,” he said.

Other research needs include more evidence to better understand the appropriate duration of therapy, given the potential for adverse effects with chronic NSAID use, Dr. Pal said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Muscle relaxants and NSAIDs effectively improved symptoms of acute low back pain after 1 week of treatment, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Acute low back pain (LBP) remains a common cause of disability worldwide, with a high socioeconomic burden, write Alice Baroncini, MD, of RWTH University Hospital, Aachen, Germany, and colleagues.

In an analysis published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, a team of investigators from Germany examined which nonopioid drugs are best for treating LBP.

The researchers identified 18 studies totaling 3,478 patients with acute low back pain of less than 12 weeks’ duration. They selected studies that only investigated the lumbar spine, and studies involving opioids were excluded. The mean age of the patients across all the studies was 42.5 years, and 54% were women. The mean duration of symptoms before treatment was 15.1 days.

Overall, muscle relaxants and NSAIDs demonstrated effectiveness in reducing pain and disability for acute LBP patients after about 1 week of use.

In addition, studies of a combination of NSAIDs and paracetamol (also known as acetaminophen) showed a greater improvement than NSAIDs alone, but paracetamol/acetaminophen alone had no significant impact on LBP.

Most patients with acute LBP experience spontaneous recovery and reduction of symptoms, thus the real impact of most medications is uncertain, the researchers write in their discussion. The lack of a placebo effect in the selected studies reinforces the hypothesis that nonopioid medications improve LBP symptoms, they say.

However, “while this work only focuses on the pharmacological management of acute LBP, it is fundamental to highlight that the use of drugs should always be a second-line strategy once other nonpharmacological, noninvasive therapies have proved to be insufficient,” the researchers write.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to distinguish among different NSAID classes, the inability to conduct a subanalysis of the best drug or treatment protocol for a given drug class, and the short follow-up period for the included studies, the researchers note.

More research is needed to address the effects of different drugs on LBP recurrence, they add.

However, the results support the current opinion that NSAIDs can be effectively used for LBP, strengthened by the large number of studies and relatively low risk of bias, the researchers conclude.

The current study addresses a common cause of morbidity among patients and highlights alternatives to opioid analgesics for its management, Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

Dr. Pal said he was not surprised by the results. “The findings of the study mirror prior studies,” he said. “However, the lack of benefit of paracetamol alone needs to be highlighted as important to clinical practice.”

A key message for clinicians is the role of NSAIDs in LBP, Dr. Pal said. “NSAIDs, either alone or in combination with paracetamol or myorelaxants, can be effective therapy for select patients with acute LBP.” However, “further research is needed to better identify which patients would derive most benefit from this approach,” he said.

Other research needs include more evidence to better understand the appropriate duration of therapy, given the potential for adverse effects with chronic NSAID use, Dr. Pal said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Surgeon goes the extra half mile for his patient

Sorry medical profession, but it’s Adam Bodzin’s world now. When a donor liver got stuck in the middle of the Philadelphia Half Marathon’s 30,000 participants, Dr. Bodzin, the transplant team’s lead surgeon, took matters into his own hands. And by hands, of course, we mean feet.

Pixnio

Still wearing his hospital scrubs, Dr. Bodzin ran more than half a mile to where the van carrying the liver was stranded, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Fortunately, he was able to hitch a ride in a police car for the return trip and didn’t have to run back through the crowd carrying his somewhat unusual package. By package, of course, we mean human liver.

It’s been 3 months since the surgery/marathon and it’s still not clear why the driver had such trouble getting through – he had been trying for more than an hour and half by the time Dr. Bodzin reached him – but the surgery half of the big event was deemed a success and the patient has recovered.

Rick Hasz, president and chief executive officer of the Gift of Life Donor Program, which coordinates organ donation for transplants in the Philadelphia region, told the newspaper that “Dr. Bodzin’s quick action demonstrated his commitment to honoring the selfless generosity of all donors and their families and gives hope to everyone waiting for a second chance at life.”

Should Dr. Bodzin consider a step up from the transplant team to another group that’s fighting for the common good? The recipient of the liver in question seems to think so. “I guess he has a cape on under that white jacket,” 66-year-old Charles Rowe told Fox29. You already know where we’re going with this, right?

Avengers … Assemble.
 

Your spleen’s due for its 5,000-mile oil change

The human body is an incredible biological machine, capable of performing a countless array of tasks automatically and essentially without flaw, but there’s always room for improvement. After all, there are animals that can regrow entire missing limbs or live for up to 500 years. It would be nice if we could get some of that going.

Sigmund/Unsplash

Rather than any of that cool stuff, a recent survey of 2,000 average Americans revealed that our ambitions for improving the human body are a bit more mundane. The big thing that would make our lives better and easier, according to three-fourths of Americans, would be a built-in “check engine” light in our bodies. Come on guys, starfish can literally be cut in half and not only survive, but become two starfish. Mantis shrimp can punch with a force thousands of times their own weight. If we could punch like they could, we could literally break steel with our fists. Wouldn’t we rather have that?

Apparently not. Fine, we’ll stick with the check engine light.

Maybe it isn’t a huge surprise that we’d like the extra help in figuring out what our body needs. According to the survey, more than 60% of Americans struggle to identify when their body is trying to tell them something important, and only one-third actively checked in with their health every day. Considering about 40% said they feel tired for much of the day and nearly half reported not having a meal with fruits or vegetables in the past 3 days, perhaps a gentle reminder wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

So, if we did have a built-in check engine light, what would we use it for? A majority said they’d like to be reminded to drink a glass of water, with 45% saying they wanted to know when to take a nap. Feeling thirsty or tired isn’t quite enough, it seems.

Of course, the technology certainly exists to make the human check engine light a reality. An implanted microchip could absolutely tell us to drink a glass of water, but that would put our health in the hands of tech companies, and you just know Meta and Elon Muskrat wouldn’t pass up the chance for monetization. “Oh, sorry, we could have notified the hospital that you were about to have a heart attack, but you didn’t pay your life subscription this month.”
 

Sext offenders show more than their, well, you know

As we have become more and more attached to our phones, especially post pandemic, it’s no surprise that sexting – sending sexually explicit images and messages with those phones – has become a fairly common way for people to sexually communicate. And with dating apps just another venture in the dating landscape, regardless of age, sexting is an easy avenue to incite a mood without being physically present.

©agmit/istockphoto.com

A recent study, though, has linked sexting with anxiety, sleep issues, depression, and compulsive sexual behaviors. Yikes.

Although the researchers noted that sexting was primarily reciprocal (sending and receiving), “over 50% of adults report sending a sext, while women are up to four times more likely than men to report having received nonconsensual sexts,” said Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, editor-in-chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, which published the study, in which Dr. Wiederhold was not involved.

Among the 2,160 U.S. college students who were involved, participants who had only sent sexts reported more anxiety, depression, and sleep problems than other groups (no sexting, received only, reciprocal). There was also a possible connection between sexting, marijuana use, and compulsive sexual behavior, the investigators said in a written statement.

Considering the study population, these data are perhaps not that surprising. For young adults, to receive or send an elusive nude is as common as it once was to give someone flowers. Not that the two things elicit the same reactions. “Many individuals reveal they enjoy consensual sexting and feel it empowers them and builds self-confidence,” Dr. Wiederhold added.

Receiving a nonconsensual sext, though, is definitely going to result in feeling violated and super awkward. Senders beware: Don’t be surprised if you’re ghosted after that.

Surgeon goes the extra half mile for his patient

Sorry medical profession, but it’s Adam Bodzin’s world now. When a donor liver got stuck in the middle of the Philadelphia Half Marathon’s 30,000 participants, Dr. Bodzin, the transplant team’s lead surgeon, took matters into his own hands. And by hands, of course, we mean feet.

Pixnio

Still wearing his hospital scrubs, Dr. Bodzin ran more than half a mile to where the van carrying the liver was stranded, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Fortunately, he was able to hitch a ride in a police car for the return trip and didn’t have to run back through the crowd carrying his somewhat unusual package. By package, of course, we mean human liver.

It’s been 3 months since the surgery/marathon and it’s still not clear why the driver had such trouble getting through – he had been trying for more than an hour and half by the time Dr. Bodzin reached him – but the surgery half of the big event was deemed a success and the patient has recovered.

Rick Hasz, president and chief executive officer of the Gift of Life Donor Program, which coordinates organ donation for transplants in the Philadelphia region, told the newspaper that “Dr. Bodzin’s quick action demonstrated his commitment to honoring the selfless generosity of all donors and their families and gives hope to everyone waiting for a second chance at life.”

Should Dr. Bodzin consider a step up from the transplant team to another group that’s fighting for the common good? The recipient of the liver in question seems to think so. “I guess he has a cape on under that white jacket,” 66-year-old Charles Rowe told Fox29. You already know where we’re going with this, right?

Avengers … Assemble.
 

Your spleen’s due for its 5,000-mile oil change

The human body is an incredible biological machine, capable of performing a countless array of tasks automatically and essentially without flaw, but there’s always room for improvement. After all, there are animals that can regrow entire missing limbs or live for up to 500 years. It would be nice if we could get some of that going.

Sigmund/Unsplash

Rather than any of that cool stuff, a recent survey of 2,000 average Americans revealed that our ambitions for improving the human body are a bit more mundane. The big thing that would make our lives better and easier, according to three-fourths of Americans, would be a built-in “check engine” light in our bodies. Come on guys, starfish can literally be cut in half and not only survive, but become two starfish. Mantis shrimp can punch with a force thousands of times their own weight. If we could punch like they could, we could literally break steel with our fists. Wouldn’t we rather have that?

Apparently not. Fine, we’ll stick with the check engine light.

Maybe it isn’t a huge surprise that we’d like the extra help in figuring out what our body needs. According to the survey, more than 60% of Americans struggle to identify when their body is trying to tell them something important, and only one-third actively checked in with their health every day. Considering about 40% said they feel tired for much of the day and nearly half reported not having a meal with fruits or vegetables in the past 3 days, perhaps a gentle reminder wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

So, if we did have a built-in check engine light, what would we use it for? A majority said they’d like to be reminded to drink a glass of water, with 45% saying they wanted to know when to take a nap. Feeling thirsty or tired isn’t quite enough, it seems.

Of course, the technology certainly exists to make the human check engine light a reality. An implanted microchip could absolutely tell us to drink a glass of water, but that would put our health in the hands of tech companies, and you just know Meta and Elon Muskrat wouldn’t pass up the chance for monetization. “Oh, sorry, we could have notified the hospital that you were about to have a heart attack, but you didn’t pay your life subscription this month.”
 

Sext offenders show more than their, well, you know

As we have become more and more attached to our phones, especially post pandemic, it’s no surprise that sexting – sending sexually explicit images and messages with those phones – has become a fairly common way for people to sexually communicate. And with dating apps just another venture in the dating landscape, regardless of age, sexting is an easy avenue to incite a mood without being physically present.

©agmit/istockphoto.com

A recent study, though, has linked sexting with anxiety, sleep issues, depression, and compulsive sexual behaviors. Yikes.

Although the researchers noted that sexting was primarily reciprocal (sending and receiving), “over 50% of adults report sending a sext, while women are up to four times more likely than men to report having received nonconsensual sexts,” said Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, editor-in-chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, which published the study, in which Dr. Wiederhold was not involved.

Among the 2,160 U.S. college students who were involved, participants who had only sent sexts reported more anxiety, depression, and sleep problems than other groups (no sexting, received only, reciprocal). There was also a possible connection between sexting, marijuana use, and compulsive sexual behavior, the investigators said in a written statement.

Considering the study population, these data are perhaps not that surprising. For young adults, to receive or send an elusive nude is as common as it once was to give someone flowers. Not that the two things elicit the same reactions. “Many individuals reveal they enjoy consensual sexting and feel it empowers them and builds self-confidence,” Dr. Wiederhold added.

Receiving a nonconsensual sext, though, is definitely going to result in feeling violated and super awkward. Senders beware: Don’t be surprised if you’re ghosted after that.

Surgeon goes the extra half mile for his patient

Sorry medical profession, but it’s Adam Bodzin’s world now. When a donor liver got stuck in the middle of the Philadelphia Half Marathon’s 30,000 participants, Dr. Bodzin, the transplant team’s lead surgeon, took matters into his own hands. And by hands, of course, we mean feet.

Pixnio

Still wearing his hospital scrubs, Dr. Bodzin ran more than half a mile to where the van carrying the liver was stranded, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Fortunately, he was able to hitch a ride in a police car for the return trip and didn’t have to run back through the crowd carrying his somewhat unusual package. By package, of course, we mean human liver.

It’s been 3 months since the surgery/marathon and it’s still not clear why the driver had such trouble getting through – he had been trying for more than an hour and half by the time Dr. Bodzin reached him – but the surgery half of the big event was deemed a success and the patient has recovered.

Rick Hasz, president and chief executive officer of the Gift of Life Donor Program, which coordinates organ donation for transplants in the Philadelphia region, told the newspaper that “Dr. Bodzin’s quick action demonstrated his commitment to honoring the selfless generosity of all donors and their families and gives hope to everyone waiting for a second chance at life.”

Should Dr. Bodzin consider a step up from the transplant team to another group that’s fighting for the common good? The recipient of the liver in question seems to think so. “I guess he has a cape on under that white jacket,” 66-year-old Charles Rowe told Fox29. You already know where we’re going with this, right?

Avengers … Assemble.
 

Your spleen’s due for its 5,000-mile oil change

The human body is an incredible biological machine, capable of performing a countless array of tasks automatically and essentially without flaw, but there’s always room for improvement. After all, there are animals that can regrow entire missing limbs or live for up to 500 years. It would be nice if we could get some of that going.

Sigmund/Unsplash

Rather than any of that cool stuff, a recent survey of 2,000 average Americans revealed that our ambitions for improving the human body are a bit more mundane. The big thing that would make our lives better and easier, according to three-fourths of Americans, would be a built-in “check engine” light in our bodies. Come on guys, starfish can literally be cut in half and not only survive, but become two starfish. Mantis shrimp can punch with a force thousands of times their own weight. If we could punch like they could, we could literally break steel with our fists. Wouldn’t we rather have that?

Apparently not. Fine, we’ll stick with the check engine light.

Maybe it isn’t a huge surprise that we’d like the extra help in figuring out what our body needs. According to the survey, more than 60% of Americans struggle to identify when their body is trying to tell them something important, and only one-third actively checked in with their health every day. Considering about 40% said they feel tired for much of the day and nearly half reported not having a meal with fruits or vegetables in the past 3 days, perhaps a gentle reminder wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

So, if we did have a built-in check engine light, what would we use it for? A majority said they’d like to be reminded to drink a glass of water, with 45% saying they wanted to know when to take a nap. Feeling thirsty or tired isn’t quite enough, it seems.

Of course, the technology certainly exists to make the human check engine light a reality. An implanted microchip could absolutely tell us to drink a glass of water, but that would put our health in the hands of tech companies, and you just know Meta and Elon Muskrat wouldn’t pass up the chance for monetization. “Oh, sorry, we could have notified the hospital that you were about to have a heart attack, but you didn’t pay your life subscription this month.”
 

Sext offenders show more than their, well, you know

As we have become more and more attached to our phones, especially post pandemic, it’s no surprise that sexting – sending sexually explicit images and messages with those phones – has become a fairly common way for people to sexually communicate. And with dating apps just another venture in the dating landscape, regardless of age, sexting is an easy avenue to incite a mood without being physically present.

©agmit/istockphoto.com

A recent study, though, has linked sexting with anxiety, sleep issues, depression, and compulsive sexual behaviors. Yikes.

Although the researchers noted that sexting was primarily reciprocal (sending and receiving), “over 50% of adults report sending a sext, while women are up to four times more likely than men to report having received nonconsensual sexts,” said Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, editor-in-chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, which published the study, in which Dr. Wiederhold was not involved.

Among the 2,160 U.S. college students who were involved, participants who had only sent sexts reported more anxiety, depression, and sleep problems than other groups (no sexting, received only, reciprocal). There was also a possible connection between sexting, marijuana use, and compulsive sexual behavior, the investigators said in a written statement.

Considering the study population, these data are perhaps not that surprising. For young adults, to receive or send an elusive nude is as common as it once was to give someone flowers. Not that the two things elicit the same reactions. “Many individuals reveal they enjoy consensual sexting and feel it empowers them and builds self-confidence,” Dr. Wiederhold added.

Receiving a nonconsensual sext, though, is definitely going to result in feeling violated and super awkward. Senders beware: Don’t be surprised if you’re ghosted after that.

Two recent studies examined interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Albrecht and colleagues examined the prevalence of ILD in German patients with RA using a nationwide claims database from 2007 to 2020. Using diagnosis codes for seropositive and seronegative RA (along with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescriptions) as well as ILD, they found the prevalence of ILD to be relatively stable from 1.6% to 2.2%, and that incidence was stable (reported as 0.13%-0.21% per year, rather than per patient-year) over the course of the study. There is likely some misclassification with the primary reliance on diagnosis codes (of the included patients with RA only 44% were seropositive). They also excluded drug-induced ILD by diagnosis code, which may not be sufficient. Overall, the prevalence of ILD seems on the low end of what might be expected and may reflect a need for earlier evaluation to detect subclinical ILD.

Kronzer and colleagues performed a case-control study of 84 patients with incident RA-ILD compared with 233 patients with RA without ILD to evaluate the risk associated with specific anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) for the development of ILD. Compared with the clinical risk factors of smoking, disease activity, obesity, and glucocorticoid use, six "fine-specificity" ACPA were better able to predict ILD risk, with immunoglobulin (Ig) A2 to citrullinated histone 4 associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.08, and the others (IgA2 to citrullinated histone 2A, IgA2 to native cyclic histone 2A, IgA2 to native histone 2A, IgG to cyclic citrullinated filaggrin, and IgG to native cyclic filaggrin) were associated with OR of 2.5-5.5 for ILD. In combination with clinical characteristics, the authors developed a risk score with 93% specificity for RA-ILD that should be validated in other populations.

Suh and colleagues examined the association of RA with another less well-studied organ complication, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), using a large national insurance database. Once again, the accuracy of diagnosis is not fully clear using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10), codes for classification. Overall, people with RA had a higher risk for ESRD than did people without RA, regardless of sex or smoking status. Because no immediate mechanistic connection between RA and ESRD is evident, it is possible that part of the increased risk is due to medications used in RA treatment, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, but this hypothesis remains to be tested.

Finally, a footnote to the success of the treat-to-target strategy (T2T) in RA comes in a study by Ramiro and colleagues of the RA-BIODAM cohort, which, along with other studies, has shown the success of T2T in achieving and maintaining long-term clinical remission in RA. The effect of T2T on radiographic progression, however, is less clear. In this study, over 500 patients were followed for 2 years and a comparison between the T2T strategy and radiographic damage was made. The T2T strategy consisted of intensification of treatment if the Disease Activity Score (DAS-44) did not achieve a goal of < 1.6. This was compared with the radiographic damage (based on the change in Sharp-van der Heijde score[SvdH]) over a 6-month period. Overall, the change in progression was not different among patients who were treated with a stricter adherence to T2T (ie, a higher proportion of T2T) compared with those who were not, suggesting that a looser application of T2T will not necessarily cause a worsening of radiographic progression. It is possible, given the intervals of assessment in this study, that a longer follow-up after T2T is necessary to detect progression, or, given that patients were not randomly assigned, patients who were more strictly treated with T2T were already at higher risk for radiographic progression. However, this study is also helpful in understanding how insights from controlled trials may play out in usual clinical practice.

Two recent studies examined interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Albrecht and colleagues examined the prevalence of ILD in German patients with RA using a nationwide claims database from 2007 to 2020. Using diagnosis codes for seropositive and seronegative RA (along with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescriptions) as well as ILD, they found the prevalence of ILD to be relatively stable from 1.6% to 2.2%, and that incidence was stable (reported as 0.13%-0.21% per year, rather than per patient-year) over the course of the study. There is likely some misclassification with the primary reliance on diagnosis codes (of the included patients with RA only 44% were seropositive). They also excluded drug-induced ILD by diagnosis code, which may not be sufficient. Overall, the prevalence of ILD seems on the low end of what might be expected and may reflect a need for earlier evaluation to detect subclinical ILD.

Kronzer and colleagues performed a case-control study of 84 patients with incident RA-ILD compared with 233 patients with RA without ILD to evaluate the risk associated with specific anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) for the development of ILD. Compared with the clinical risk factors of smoking, disease activity, obesity, and glucocorticoid use, six "fine-specificity" ACPA were better able to predict ILD risk, with immunoglobulin (Ig) A2 to citrullinated histone 4 associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.08, and the others (IgA2 to citrullinated histone 2A, IgA2 to native cyclic histone 2A, IgA2 to native histone 2A, IgG to cyclic citrullinated filaggrin, and IgG to native cyclic filaggrin) were associated with OR of 2.5-5.5 for ILD. In combination with clinical characteristics, the authors developed a risk score with 93% specificity for RA-ILD that should be validated in other populations.

Suh and colleagues examined the association of RA with another less well-studied organ complication, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), using a large national insurance database. Once again, the accuracy of diagnosis is not fully clear using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10), codes for classification. Overall, people with RA had a higher risk for ESRD than did people without RA, regardless of sex or smoking status. Because no immediate mechanistic connection between RA and ESRD is evident, it is possible that part of the increased risk is due to medications used in RA treatment, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, but this hypothesis remains to be tested.

Finally, a footnote to the success of the treat-to-target strategy (T2T) in RA comes in a study by Ramiro and colleagues of the RA-BIODAM cohort, which, along with other studies, has shown the success of T2T in achieving and maintaining long-term clinical remission in RA. The effect of T2T on radiographic progression, however, is less clear. In this study, over 500 patients were followed for 2 years and a comparison between the T2T strategy and radiographic damage was made. The T2T strategy consisted of intensification of treatment if the Disease Activity Score (DAS-44) did not achieve a goal of < 1.6. This was compared with the radiographic damage (based on the change in Sharp-van der Heijde score[SvdH]) over a 6-month period. Overall, the change in progression was not different among patients who were treated with a stricter adherence to T2T (ie, a higher proportion of T2T) compared with those who were not, suggesting that a looser application of T2T will not necessarily cause a worsening of radiographic progression. It is possible, given the intervals of assessment in this study, that a longer follow-up after T2T is necessary to detect progression, or, given that patients were not randomly assigned, patients who were more strictly treated with T2T were already at higher risk for radiographic progression. However, this study is also helpful in understanding how insights from controlled trials may play out in usual clinical practice.

Two recent studies examined interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Albrecht and colleagues examined the prevalence of ILD in German patients with RA using a nationwide claims database from 2007 to 2020. Using diagnosis codes for seropositive and seronegative RA (along with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescriptions) as well as ILD, they found the prevalence of ILD to be relatively stable from 1.6% to 2.2%, and that incidence was stable (reported as 0.13%-0.21% per year, rather than per patient-year) over the course of the study. There is likely some misclassification with the primary reliance on diagnosis codes (of the included patients with RA only 44% were seropositive). They also excluded drug-induced ILD by diagnosis code, which may not be sufficient. Overall, the prevalence of ILD seems on the low end of what might be expected and may reflect a need for earlier evaluation to detect subclinical ILD.

Kronzer and colleagues performed a case-control study of 84 patients with incident RA-ILD compared with 233 patients with RA without ILD to evaluate the risk associated with specific anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) for the development of ILD. Compared with the clinical risk factors of smoking, disease activity, obesity, and glucocorticoid use, six "fine-specificity" ACPA were better able to predict ILD risk, with immunoglobulin (Ig) A2 to citrullinated histone 4 associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.08, and the others (IgA2 to citrullinated histone 2A, IgA2 to native cyclic histone 2A, IgA2 to native histone 2A, IgG to cyclic citrullinated filaggrin, and IgG to native cyclic filaggrin) were associated with OR of 2.5-5.5 for ILD. In combination with clinical characteristics, the authors developed a risk score with 93% specificity for RA-ILD that should be validated in other populations.

Suh and colleagues examined the association of RA with another less well-studied organ complication, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), using a large national insurance database. Once again, the accuracy of diagnosis is not fully clear using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10), codes for classification. Overall, people with RA had a higher risk for ESRD than did people without RA, regardless of sex or smoking status. Because no immediate mechanistic connection between RA and ESRD is evident, it is possible that part of the increased risk is due to medications used in RA treatment, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, but this hypothesis remains to be tested.

Finally, a footnote to the success of the treat-to-target strategy (T2T) in RA comes in a study by Ramiro and colleagues of the RA-BIODAM cohort, which, along with other studies, has shown the success of T2T in achieving and maintaining long-term clinical remission in RA. The effect of T2T on radiographic progression, however, is less clear. In this study, over 500 patients were followed for 2 years and a comparison between the T2T strategy and radiographic damage was made. The T2T strategy consisted of intensification of treatment if the Disease Activity Score (DAS-44) did not achieve a goal of < 1.6. This was compared with the radiographic damage (based on the change in Sharp-van der Heijde score[SvdH]) over a 6-month period. Overall, the change in progression was not different among patients who were treated with a stricter adherence to T2T (ie, a higher proportion of T2T) compared with those who were not, suggesting that a looser application of T2T will not necessarily cause a worsening of radiographic progression. It is possible, given the intervals of assessment in this study, that a longer follow-up after T2T is necessary to detect progression, or, given that patients were not randomly assigned, patients who were more strictly treated with T2T were already at higher risk for radiographic progression. However, this study is also helpful in understanding how insights from controlled trials may play out in usual clinical practice.

The Food and Drug Administration approved sarilumab (Kevzara) on March 1 for the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) in adults who have had an inadequate response to corticosteroids or could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper, joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron announced. The drug is the first and only FDA-approved biologic treatment for this inflammatory rheumatic disease. 

The FDA previously approved sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, in May 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who do not respond well or have an intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), like methotrexate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA approval for this new indication was based on results from the multicenter, phase 3 SAPHYR trial in patients with corticosteroid-resistant, active PMR. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 59 participants received 200 mg of sarilumab plus a 14-week taper of corticosteroid treatment and 58 participants received placebo every 2 weeks along with a 52-week taper of corticosteroid treatment.

After 1 year, 28% of sarilumab patients achieved sustained remission, compared with 10% of the placebo group (P = .0193). This news organization previously reported these trial results in November when they were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The most common adverse events in the sarilumab group were neutropenia (15%), leukopenia (7%), constipation (7%), pruritic rash (5%), myalgia (7%), fatigue (5%), and injection-site pruritus (5%). Two patients had serious adverse reactions of neutropenia, which resolved after discontinuing treatment.

“Polymyalgia rheumatica can be an incapacitating disease, causing painful disease flares in multiple parts of the bodies that leave people fatigued and unable to fully perform everyday activities. Corticosteroids have been the primary treatment to date, but many patients do not adequately respond to steroids or cannot be tapered off steroids, which puts such patients at risk of complications from long-term steroid therapy,” George D. Yancopolous, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron, said in the announcement. “With the approval of Kevzara for polymyalgia rheumatica, patients now have an FDA-approved treatment to help offer relief from the disabling symptoms of this disease and long-term dependence on steroids.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved sarilumab (Kevzara) on March 1 for the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) in adults who have had an inadequate response to corticosteroids or could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper, joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron announced. The drug is the first and only FDA-approved biologic treatment for this inflammatory rheumatic disease. 

The FDA previously approved sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, in May 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who do not respond well or have an intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), like methotrexate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA approval for this new indication was based on results from the multicenter, phase 3 SAPHYR trial in patients with corticosteroid-resistant, active PMR. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 59 participants received 200 mg of sarilumab plus a 14-week taper of corticosteroid treatment and 58 participants received placebo every 2 weeks along with a 52-week taper of corticosteroid treatment.

After 1 year, 28% of sarilumab patients achieved sustained remission, compared with 10% of the placebo group (P = .0193). This news organization previously reported these trial results in November when they were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The most common adverse events in the sarilumab group were neutropenia (15%), leukopenia (7%), constipation (7%), pruritic rash (5%), myalgia (7%), fatigue (5%), and injection-site pruritus (5%). Two patients had serious adverse reactions of neutropenia, which resolved after discontinuing treatment.

“Polymyalgia rheumatica can be an incapacitating disease, causing painful disease flares in multiple parts of the bodies that leave people fatigued and unable to fully perform everyday activities. Corticosteroids have been the primary treatment to date, but many patients do not adequately respond to steroids or cannot be tapered off steroids, which puts such patients at risk of complications from long-term steroid therapy,” George D. Yancopolous, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron, said in the announcement. “With the approval of Kevzara for polymyalgia rheumatica, patients now have an FDA-approved treatment to help offer relief from the disabling symptoms of this disease and long-term dependence on steroids.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved sarilumab (Kevzara) on March 1 for the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) in adults who have had an inadequate response to corticosteroids or could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper, joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron announced. The drug is the first and only FDA-approved biologic treatment for this inflammatory rheumatic disease. 

The FDA previously approved sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, in May 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who do not respond well or have an intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), like methotrexate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA approval for this new indication was based on results from the multicenter, phase 3 SAPHYR trial in patients with corticosteroid-resistant, active PMR. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 59 participants received 200 mg of sarilumab plus a 14-week taper of corticosteroid treatment and 58 participants received placebo every 2 weeks along with a 52-week taper of corticosteroid treatment.

After 1 year, 28% of sarilumab patients achieved sustained remission, compared with 10% of the placebo group (P = .0193). This news organization previously reported these trial results in November when they were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The most common adverse events in the sarilumab group were neutropenia (15%), leukopenia (7%), constipation (7%), pruritic rash (5%), myalgia (7%), fatigue (5%), and injection-site pruritus (5%). Two patients had serious adverse reactions of neutropenia, which resolved after discontinuing treatment.

“Polymyalgia rheumatica can be an incapacitating disease, causing painful disease flares in multiple parts of the bodies that leave people fatigued and unable to fully perform everyday activities. Corticosteroids have been the primary treatment to date, but many patients do not adequately respond to steroids or cannot be tapered off steroids, which puts such patients at risk of complications from long-term steroid therapy,” George D. Yancopolous, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron, said in the announcement. “With the approval of Kevzara for polymyalgia rheumatica, patients now have an FDA-approved treatment to help offer relief from the disabling symptoms of this disease and long-term dependence on steroids.”

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

Lille, France – The American College of Physicians has just updated its guidelines for osteoporosis treatment. Bernard Cortet, MD, PhD, chairperson of the Osteoporosis Research and Information Group and head of the rheumatology department at Lille (France) University Hospital, has agreed to compare the new U.S. guidelines to the 2018 French recommendations written under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology and GRIO. Dr. Cortet participated in drafting the French recommendations.

Question: The ACP “strongly” recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonate antiresorptive drugs (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis. Isn’t this what the SFR–GRIO have been recommending for many years?

Answer: The ACP reinforces its stance by arguing that in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have the most favorable balance between benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the drug classes that were evaluated. In addition to net clinical benefits, bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and are available in generic oral and injectable formulations.

Our French recommendations specify the choice of drug based on the type of fracture in women and on their bone mineral density (BMD). However, bisphosphonates are definitely given pride of place. When treatment for osteoporosis needs to be started, most of the time, a bisphosphonate is the treatment of choice.

Nevertheless, as also highlighted by the ACP, a more “aggressive” approach must be considered for more severe cases.

In the case of a severe fracture, the French recommendations indicate that all treatments can be prescribed. However, zoledronic acid should be favored as first-line treatment for a hip fracture. In other cases – with or without a nonsevere fracture – the therapeutic indication depends on the BMD values, and in difficult cases, on tools such as FRAX [the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool].

Our guidance strongly recommends opting for an injection in other contexts, such as significant decrease in bone density, presence of comorbidities, poor treatment compliance, brain function disorders, and polymedication.

Q. But it’s not really as simple as prescribing a bisphosphonate, is it?

A. You’re right, many people find the idea of taking bisphosphonates worrying because of associated jaw problems – osteonecrosis of the jaw – or atypical femoral fractures, based on what they’ve read on the Internet, where these serious adverse events are on display front and center with no mention of how often they actually happen and, often, failing to mention how effective bisphosphonates truly are.

These complications are real, but fortunately rare, especially during the first 5 years of treatment. To put this into context, for bisphosphonates, there’s one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw for every 10,000. And for denosumab, there are five cases for every 10,000. For atypical fractures, there’s one case for every 30,000 to 50,000.

Q. The U.S. guidelines also recommend that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab, also an antiresorptive drug – as second-line medical treatment. This is to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women diagnosed with primary osteoporosis and presenting with contraindications or side effects of bisphosphonates. Do you support the use of denosumab as second-line treatment?

A. French legislation classifies it as a second-line treatment, after bisphosphonates. However, there are arguments in favor of prescribing it as first-line treatment in some contexts. If denosumab is to be prescribed – via a twice-yearly subcutaneous injection – full compliance must be observed. If a patient is to stop taking denosumab, an opinion from a medical professional is required before treatment can be discontinued, and then treatment with bisphosphonates must be prescribed.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use either a sclerostin inhibitor – romosozumab – or recombinant human parathyroid hormone – teriparatide – two anabolic agents, followed by a bisphosphonate, with the aim of reducing the risk of fractures. This is only used in women with primary osteoporosis who are at a very high risk of fracture. As romosozumab is not available in France, it’s not really worth discussing its use. Does this strategy seem advisable to you, though?

A. The main issue is what is understood by “women at a very high risk of fracture.” There’s no consensus on the definition of what constitutes a woman at a very high risk of fracture, but we can assume that it involves the combination of low BMD and at least one severe fracture.

The role of anabolic bone treatment, as [the ACP] has defined it, seems logical to me, because in cases of severe osteoporosis with fracture, the risk of recurrence is very high in the next 2-3 years. In a study comparing risedronate and teriparatide in cases of severe osteoporosis, teriparatide was more effective in reducing the recurrence of vertebral fractures.

The favorable opinion of the French National Authority for Health in relation to medical coverage for romosozumab in the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in women under the age of 75 years with a history of severe fractures, a T-score less than –2.5, and no previous history of coronary artery disease dates to 2021. This is because medical coverage for this specific group was not listed in the marketing authorization (MA) description for this drug.

But the review by the Economic Committee for Health Products failed to reach a consensus regarding the price. Today, in theory, romosozumab can be dispensed in France by hospital pharmacies, because it is approved for use in public hospitals. Romosozumab is a very interesting drug for relatively young women, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures. This injectable treatment is more effective than teriparatide in increasing BMD values and more effective than alendronate in preventing the recurrence of fractures.

Regarding medical coverage, as it stands, in cases where patients have a T-score less than or equal to –3, the 2018 SFR–GRIO recommends starting treatment even if the patient has no fractures. In cases with severe fractures combined with very low BMD (T-score ≤ –3), injectable treatments may be used to reach a bone density target (T-score > –2.5 to –2 for the hip) at the end of the treatment plan. [These treatments include] zoledronic acid, denosumab (in case of bisphosphonate failure or intolerance), or a treatment plan with teriparatide (covered by medical insurance if the patient has at least two vertebral fractures) followed by an antiresorptive drug (bisphosphonate or denosumab).

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2) that binds to sclerostin and acts as an inhibitor. This increases bone formation because of the activation of [bone lining cells], the production of bone matrix by osteoblasts, and the recruitment of osteochondroprogenitor cells. Moreover, romosozumab causes changes in the expression of osteoclast mediators, which decreases bone resorption. Together, these two effects that increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption lead to the rapid increase of trabecular and cortical bone mass, as well as improvements in bone structure and strength.

Women treated with a bone anabolic agent must take an antiresorptive agent at the end of their treatment so that the benefits from the treatment remain in the long term. The French and U.S. guidelines line up on this point.

In patients with two prevalent vertebral fractures, the U.S. guidelines state that teriparatide can be prescribed as first-line treatment at diagnosis in the absence of any contraindications. We agree on this point as well.

Moreover, in women under the age of 70 years with osteoporosis requiring treatment, French experts recommend prescribing raloxifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator. This is if the risk of nonvertebral fracture is low, as defined by the absence of the following criteria: low hip T-score, risk of falling, and history of nonvertebral fracture. Opportunities for its use are limited, and it doesn’t even figure among the U.S. recommendations.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians adopt an individualized approach regarding whether to start medical treatment with a bisphosphonate in women over age 65 years with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures. If treatment is started, they›re of the opinion that a bisphosphonate must be used. What are the recommendations in France?

A. It should be noted that this recommendation by the ACP is conditional because of the low-certainty evidence.

Here’s a brief reminder of important things to note: a T-score between –2.5 and –1 indicates osteopenia; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 indicates osteoporosis; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 with one or several fractures indicates severe osteoporosis. The French recommendations state that treatment is not justified if a patient’s T-score is higher than –2 and there’s no presence of fractures, even with risk factors (and/or multiple falls). For T-scores less than or equal to –2 and higher than –3, the decision to prescribe depends on the specialist.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for the initial medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis.

A. The ACP recommends that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab – as second-line medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who present with contraindications or who are experiencing side effects of bisphosphonates. This treatment is not covered by health insurance for men in France.

Between 20% and 25% of clinical osteoporotic fractures occur in men. After age 50 years, men are roughly 20% more likely to experience an osteoporotic fracture in their lifetime. The French recommendations regarding the management and treatment of osteoporosis in men were published in 2021.

In the case of severe fractures (vertebrae, pelvis, upper end of the femur, distal femur, proximal humerus) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –1.

In the case of nonsevere fractures (particularly wrist and ankle) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –2. If there are no fractures, osteoporosis treatment is recommended in men at risk of bone fragility or of falling and if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –3. In patients who had a fracture of the upper end of the femur attributable to bone fragility, zoledronic acid is recommended as first-line treatment.

For men with a severe nonvertebral fracture, single vertebral fracture, or nonsevere fracture, two treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: zoledronic acid and risedronate. In men with at least two vertebral fractures, the following treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: teriparatide and risedronate. In this case, teriparatide is prescribed for a period of 18 months. It must be followed by a prescription of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates.

Q. What is your take on the HAS update to the proper use of osteoporosis medication that’s just been published?

A. Like in the 2018 SFR–GRIO guidelines, no update has been made to the section on postmenopausal osteoporosis, except for the HAS introduction to the proper use of romosozumab, even though it’s not covered by health insurance in France.

In accordance with the MA, it doesn’t make sense to include this drug on the list of treatment options available for women with and without fractures, as it’s not included in the HAS-selected list of drugs covered by health insurance in France.

But I’m glad that the HAS has adopted the GRIO and SFR recommendations regarding corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Preventive treatment for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis must be considered as soon as the daily dose of corticosteroids reaches or exceeds the equivalent of 7.5 mg of prednisone and when the estimated duration of corticosteroid therapy exceeds 3 months.

In summary, in women and men over the age of 50 years, the intake of the equivalent of 7.5 mg/day or more of prednisone or a history of a low-trauma fracture or being age 70 years or older, even with a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 for one of the two sites, indicates prescribing a bisphosphonate. Teriparatide is indicated if the patient has two vertebral fractures.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Lille, France – The American College of Physicians has just updated its guidelines for osteoporosis treatment. Bernard Cortet, MD, PhD, chairperson of the Osteoporosis Research and Information Group and head of the rheumatology department at Lille (France) University Hospital, has agreed to compare the new U.S. guidelines to the 2018 French recommendations written under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology and GRIO. Dr. Cortet participated in drafting the French recommendations.

Question: The ACP “strongly” recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonate antiresorptive drugs (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis. Isn’t this what the SFR–GRIO have been recommending for many years?

Answer: The ACP reinforces its stance by arguing that in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have the most favorable balance between benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the drug classes that were evaluated. In addition to net clinical benefits, bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and are available in generic oral and injectable formulations.

Our French recommendations specify the choice of drug based on the type of fracture in women and on their bone mineral density (BMD). However, bisphosphonates are definitely given pride of place. When treatment for osteoporosis needs to be started, most of the time, a bisphosphonate is the treatment of choice.

Nevertheless, as also highlighted by the ACP, a more “aggressive” approach must be considered for more severe cases.

In the case of a severe fracture, the French recommendations indicate that all treatments can be prescribed. However, zoledronic acid should be favored as first-line treatment for a hip fracture. In other cases – with or without a nonsevere fracture – the therapeutic indication depends on the BMD values, and in difficult cases, on tools such as FRAX [the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool].

Our guidance strongly recommends opting for an injection in other contexts, such as significant decrease in bone density, presence of comorbidities, poor treatment compliance, brain function disorders, and polymedication.

Q. But it’s not really as simple as prescribing a bisphosphonate, is it?

A. You’re right, many people find the idea of taking bisphosphonates worrying because of associated jaw problems – osteonecrosis of the jaw – or atypical femoral fractures, based on what they’ve read on the Internet, where these serious adverse events are on display front and center with no mention of how often they actually happen and, often, failing to mention how effective bisphosphonates truly are.

These complications are real, but fortunately rare, especially during the first 5 years of treatment. To put this into context, for bisphosphonates, there’s one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw for every 10,000. And for denosumab, there are five cases for every 10,000. For atypical fractures, there’s one case for every 30,000 to 50,000.

Q. The U.S. guidelines also recommend that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab, also an antiresorptive drug – as second-line medical treatment. This is to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women diagnosed with primary osteoporosis and presenting with contraindications or side effects of bisphosphonates. Do you support the use of denosumab as second-line treatment?

A. French legislation classifies it as a second-line treatment, after bisphosphonates. However, there are arguments in favor of prescribing it as first-line treatment in some contexts. If denosumab is to be prescribed – via a twice-yearly subcutaneous injection – full compliance must be observed. If a patient is to stop taking denosumab, an opinion from a medical professional is required before treatment can be discontinued, and then treatment with bisphosphonates must be prescribed.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use either a sclerostin inhibitor – romosozumab – or recombinant human parathyroid hormone – teriparatide – two anabolic agents, followed by a bisphosphonate, with the aim of reducing the risk of fractures. This is only used in women with primary osteoporosis who are at a very high risk of fracture. As romosozumab is not available in France, it’s not really worth discussing its use. Does this strategy seem advisable to you, though?

A. The main issue is what is understood by “women at a very high risk of fracture.” There’s no consensus on the definition of what constitutes a woman at a very high risk of fracture, but we can assume that it involves the combination of low BMD and at least one severe fracture.

The role of anabolic bone treatment, as [the ACP] has defined it, seems logical to me, because in cases of severe osteoporosis with fracture, the risk of recurrence is very high in the next 2-3 years. In a study comparing risedronate and teriparatide in cases of severe osteoporosis, teriparatide was more effective in reducing the recurrence of vertebral fractures.

The favorable opinion of the French National Authority for Health in relation to medical coverage for romosozumab in the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in women under the age of 75 years with a history of severe fractures, a T-score less than –2.5, and no previous history of coronary artery disease dates to 2021. This is because medical coverage for this specific group was not listed in the marketing authorization (MA) description for this drug.

But the review by the Economic Committee for Health Products failed to reach a consensus regarding the price. Today, in theory, romosozumab can be dispensed in France by hospital pharmacies, because it is approved for use in public hospitals. Romosozumab is a very interesting drug for relatively young women, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures. This injectable treatment is more effective than teriparatide in increasing BMD values and more effective than alendronate in preventing the recurrence of fractures.

Regarding medical coverage, as it stands, in cases where patients have a T-score less than or equal to –3, the 2018 SFR–GRIO recommends starting treatment even if the patient has no fractures. In cases with severe fractures combined with very low BMD (T-score ≤ –3), injectable treatments may be used to reach a bone density target (T-score > –2.5 to –2 for the hip) at the end of the treatment plan. [These treatments include] zoledronic acid, denosumab (in case of bisphosphonate failure or intolerance), or a treatment plan with teriparatide (covered by medical insurance if the patient has at least two vertebral fractures) followed by an antiresorptive drug (bisphosphonate or denosumab).

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2) that binds to sclerostin and acts as an inhibitor. This increases bone formation because of the activation of [bone lining cells], the production of bone matrix by osteoblasts, and the recruitment of osteochondroprogenitor cells. Moreover, romosozumab causes changes in the expression of osteoclast mediators, which decreases bone resorption. Together, these two effects that increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption lead to the rapid increase of trabecular and cortical bone mass, as well as improvements in bone structure and strength.

Women treated with a bone anabolic agent must take an antiresorptive agent at the end of their treatment so that the benefits from the treatment remain in the long term. The French and U.S. guidelines line up on this point.

In patients with two prevalent vertebral fractures, the U.S. guidelines state that teriparatide can be prescribed as first-line treatment at diagnosis in the absence of any contraindications. We agree on this point as well.

Moreover, in women under the age of 70 years with osteoporosis requiring treatment, French experts recommend prescribing raloxifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator. This is if the risk of nonvertebral fracture is low, as defined by the absence of the following criteria: low hip T-score, risk of falling, and history of nonvertebral fracture. Opportunities for its use are limited, and it doesn’t even figure among the U.S. recommendations.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians adopt an individualized approach regarding whether to start medical treatment with a bisphosphonate in women over age 65 years with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures. If treatment is started, they›re of the opinion that a bisphosphonate must be used. What are the recommendations in France?

A. It should be noted that this recommendation by the ACP is conditional because of the low-certainty evidence.

Here’s a brief reminder of important things to note: a T-score between –2.5 and –1 indicates osteopenia; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 indicates osteoporosis; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 with one or several fractures indicates severe osteoporosis. The French recommendations state that treatment is not justified if a patient’s T-score is higher than –2 and there’s no presence of fractures, even with risk factors (and/or multiple falls). For T-scores less than or equal to –2 and higher than –3, the decision to prescribe depends on the specialist.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for the initial medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis.

A. The ACP recommends that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab – as second-line medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who present with contraindications or who are experiencing side effects of bisphosphonates. This treatment is not covered by health insurance for men in France.

Between 20% and 25% of clinical osteoporotic fractures occur in men. After age 50 years, men are roughly 20% more likely to experience an osteoporotic fracture in their lifetime. The French recommendations regarding the management and treatment of osteoporosis in men were published in 2021.

In the case of severe fractures (vertebrae, pelvis, upper end of the femur, distal femur, proximal humerus) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –1.

In the case of nonsevere fractures (particularly wrist and ankle) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –2. If there are no fractures, osteoporosis treatment is recommended in men at risk of bone fragility or of falling and if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –3. In patients who had a fracture of the upper end of the femur attributable to bone fragility, zoledronic acid is recommended as first-line treatment.

For men with a severe nonvertebral fracture, single vertebral fracture, or nonsevere fracture, two treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: zoledronic acid and risedronate. In men with at least two vertebral fractures, the following treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: teriparatide and risedronate. In this case, teriparatide is prescribed for a period of 18 months. It must be followed by a prescription of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates.

Q. What is your take on the HAS update to the proper use of osteoporosis medication that’s just been published?

A. Like in the 2018 SFR–GRIO guidelines, no update has been made to the section on postmenopausal osteoporosis, except for the HAS introduction to the proper use of romosozumab, even though it’s not covered by health insurance in France.

In accordance with the MA, it doesn’t make sense to include this drug on the list of treatment options available for women with and without fractures, as it’s not included in the HAS-selected list of drugs covered by health insurance in France.

But I’m glad that the HAS has adopted the GRIO and SFR recommendations regarding corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Preventive treatment for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis must be considered as soon as the daily dose of corticosteroids reaches or exceeds the equivalent of 7.5 mg of prednisone and when the estimated duration of corticosteroid therapy exceeds 3 months.

In summary, in women and men over the age of 50 years, the intake of the equivalent of 7.5 mg/day or more of prednisone or a history of a low-trauma fracture or being age 70 years or older, even with a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 for one of the two sites, indicates prescribing a bisphosphonate. Teriparatide is indicated if the patient has two vertebral fractures.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Lille, France – The American College of Physicians has just updated its guidelines for osteoporosis treatment. Bernard Cortet, MD, PhD, chairperson of the Osteoporosis Research and Information Group and head of the rheumatology department at Lille (France) University Hospital, has agreed to compare the new U.S. guidelines to the 2018 French recommendations written under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology and GRIO. Dr. Cortet participated in drafting the French recommendations.

Question: The ACP “strongly” recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonate antiresorptive drugs (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis. Isn’t this what the SFR–GRIO have been recommending for many years?

Answer: The ACP reinforces its stance by arguing that in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have the most favorable balance between benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the drug classes that were evaluated. In addition to net clinical benefits, bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and are available in generic oral and injectable formulations.

Our French recommendations specify the choice of drug based on the type of fracture in women and on their bone mineral density (BMD). However, bisphosphonates are definitely given pride of place. When treatment for osteoporosis needs to be started, most of the time, a bisphosphonate is the treatment of choice.

Nevertheless, as also highlighted by the ACP, a more “aggressive” approach must be considered for more severe cases.

In the case of a severe fracture, the French recommendations indicate that all treatments can be prescribed. However, zoledronic acid should be favored as first-line treatment for a hip fracture. In other cases – with or without a nonsevere fracture – the therapeutic indication depends on the BMD values, and in difficult cases, on tools such as FRAX [the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool].

Our guidance strongly recommends opting for an injection in other contexts, such as significant decrease in bone density, presence of comorbidities, poor treatment compliance, brain function disorders, and polymedication.

Q. But it’s not really as simple as prescribing a bisphosphonate, is it?

A. You’re right, many people find the idea of taking bisphosphonates worrying because of associated jaw problems – osteonecrosis of the jaw – or atypical femoral fractures, based on what they’ve read on the Internet, where these serious adverse events are on display front and center with no mention of how often they actually happen and, often, failing to mention how effective bisphosphonates truly are.

These complications are real, but fortunately rare, especially during the first 5 years of treatment. To put this into context, for bisphosphonates, there’s one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw for every 10,000. And for denosumab, there are five cases for every 10,000. For atypical fractures, there’s one case for every 30,000 to 50,000.

Q. The U.S. guidelines also recommend that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab, also an antiresorptive drug – as second-line medical treatment. This is to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women diagnosed with primary osteoporosis and presenting with contraindications or side effects of bisphosphonates. Do you support the use of denosumab as second-line treatment?

A. French legislation classifies it as a second-line treatment, after bisphosphonates. However, there are arguments in favor of prescribing it as first-line treatment in some contexts. If denosumab is to be prescribed – via a twice-yearly subcutaneous injection – full compliance must be observed. If a patient is to stop taking denosumab, an opinion from a medical professional is required before treatment can be discontinued, and then treatment with bisphosphonates must be prescribed.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use either a sclerostin inhibitor – romosozumab – or recombinant human parathyroid hormone – teriparatide – two anabolic agents, followed by a bisphosphonate, with the aim of reducing the risk of fractures. This is only used in women with primary osteoporosis who are at a very high risk of fracture. As romosozumab is not available in France, it’s not really worth discussing its use. Does this strategy seem advisable to you, though?

A. The main issue is what is understood by “women at a very high risk of fracture.” There’s no consensus on the definition of what constitutes a woman at a very high risk of fracture, but we can assume that it involves the combination of low BMD and at least one severe fracture.

The role of anabolic bone treatment, as [the ACP] has defined it, seems logical to me, because in cases of severe osteoporosis with fracture, the risk of recurrence is very high in the next 2-3 years. In a study comparing risedronate and teriparatide in cases of severe osteoporosis, teriparatide was more effective in reducing the recurrence of vertebral fractures.

The favorable opinion of the French National Authority for Health in relation to medical coverage for romosozumab in the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in women under the age of 75 years with a history of severe fractures, a T-score less than –2.5, and no previous history of coronary artery disease dates to 2021. This is because medical coverage for this specific group was not listed in the marketing authorization (MA) description for this drug.

But the review by the Economic Committee for Health Products failed to reach a consensus regarding the price. Today, in theory, romosozumab can be dispensed in France by hospital pharmacies, because it is approved for use in public hospitals. Romosozumab is a very interesting drug for relatively young women, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures. This injectable treatment is more effective than teriparatide in increasing BMD values and more effective than alendronate in preventing the recurrence of fractures.

Regarding medical coverage, as it stands, in cases where patients have a T-score less than or equal to –3, the 2018 SFR–GRIO recommends starting treatment even if the patient has no fractures. In cases with severe fractures combined with very low BMD (T-score ≤ –3), injectable treatments may be used to reach a bone density target (T-score > –2.5 to –2 for the hip) at the end of the treatment plan. [These treatments include] zoledronic acid, denosumab (in case of bisphosphonate failure or intolerance), or a treatment plan with teriparatide (covered by medical insurance if the patient has at least two vertebral fractures) followed by an antiresorptive drug (bisphosphonate or denosumab).

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2) that binds to sclerostin and acts as an inhibitor. This increases bone formation because of the activation of [bone lining cells], the production of bone matrix by osteoblasts, and the recruitment of osteochondroprogenitor cells. Moreover, romosozumab causes changes in the expression of osteoclast mediators, which decreases bone resorption. Together, these two effects that increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption lead to the rapid increase of trabecular and cortical bone mass, as well as improvements in bone structure and strength.

Women treated with a bone anabolic agent must take an antiresorptive agent at the end of their treatment so that the benefits from the treatment remain in the long term. The French and U.S. guidelines line up on this point.

In patients with two prevalent vertebral fractures, the U.S. guidelines state that teriparatide can be prescribed as first-line treatment at diagnosis in the absence of any contraindications. We agree on this point as well.

Moreover, in women under the age of 70 years with osteoporosis requiring treatment, French experts recommend prescribing raloxifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator. This is if the risk of nonvertebral fracture is low, as defined by the absence of the following criteria: low hip T-score, risk of falling, and history of nonvertebral fracture. Opportunities for its use are limited, and it doesn’t even figure among the U.S. recommendations.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians adopt an individualized approach regarding whether to start medical treatment with a bisphosphonate in women over age 65 years with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures. If treatment is started, they›re of the opinion that a bisphosphonate must be used. What are the recommendations in France?

A. It should be noted that this recommendation by the ACP is conditional because of the low-certainty evidence.

Here’s a brief reminder of important things to note: a T-score between –2.5 and –1 indicates osteopenia; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 indicates osteoporosis; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 with one or several fractures indicates severe osteoporosis. The French recommendations state that treatment is not justified if a patient’s T-score is higher than –2 and there’s no presence of fractures, even with risk factors (and/or multiple falls). For T-scores less than or equal to –2 and higher than –3, the decision to prescribe depends on the specialist.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for the initial medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis.

A. The ACP recommends that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab – as second-line medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who present with contraindications or who are experiencing side effects of bisphosphonates. This treatment is not covered by health insurance for men in France.

Between 20% and 25% of clinical osteoporotic fractures occur in men. After age 50 years, men are roughly 20% more likely to experience an osteoporotic fracture in their lifetime. The French recommendations regarding the management and treatment of osteoporosis in men were published in 2021.

In the case of severe fractures (vertebrae, pelvis, upper end of the femur, distal femur, proximal humerus) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –1.

In the case of nonsevere fractures (particularly wrist and ankle) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –2. If there are no fractures, osteoporosis treatment is recommended in men at risk of bone fragility or of falling and if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –3. In patients who had a fracture of the upper end of the femur attributable to bone fragility, zoledronic acid is recommended as first-line treatment.

For men with a severe nonvertebral fracture, single vertebral fracture, or nonsevere fracture, two treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: zoledronic acid and risedronate. In men with at least two vertebral fractures, the following treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: teriparatide and risedronate. In this case, teriparatide is prescribed for a period of 18 months. It must be followed by a prescription of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates.

Q. What is your take on the HAS update to the proper use of osteoporosis medication that’s just been published?

A. Like in the 2018 SFR–GRIO guidelines, no update has been made to the section on postmenopausal osteoporosis, except for the HAS introduction to the proper use of romosozumab, even though it’s not covered by health insurance in France.

In accordance with the MA, it doesn’t make sense to include this drug on the list of treatment options available for women with and without fractures, as it’s not included in the HAS-selected list of drugs covered by health insurance in France.

But I’m glad that the HAS has adopted the GRIO and SFR recommendations regarding corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Preventive treatment for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis must be considered as soon as the daily dose of corticosteroids reaches or exceeds the equivalent of 7.5 mg of prednisone and when the estimated duration of corticosteroid therapy exceeds 3 months.

In summary, in women and men over the age of 50 years, the intake of the equivalent of 7.5 mg/day or more of prednisone or a history of a low-trauma fracture or being age 70 years or older, even with a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 for one of the two sites, indicates prescribing a bisphosphonate. Teriparatide is indicated if the patient has two vertebral fractures.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Proinflammatory elements mediated through metabolic pathways related to obesity and increased cellular senescence in CD57 expression in CD8+ T cells are associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), according to a Mexican study. The researchers followed a Mexican cohort of 102 patients 3 months and 6 months after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study’s principal investigator was Diana Gómez-Martín, MD, PhD, of the department of immunology and rheumatology at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Mexico City. She told this news organization that follow-up of the patients began with the objective of understanding the determinative clinical, genetic, metabolic, and immunological factors in the progression of the acute disease. However, clinical aspects associated with PASC developed in the selected cohort. As a result, the study was extended, and the clinical, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in this single-center Mexican cohort were evaluated 3 months 6 months after the onset of infection.

Dr. Gómez-Martín explained that the immune senescence in CD57 of CD8+ T cells is one of the best-known findings of the present study. If it is confirmed in future studies, it could have important implications. “Its main implication is the possibility of better understanding the physiopathology of the clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19, potentially being used for early detection and to provide follow-up aimed at patients, in addition to eventually developing targeted therapeutic strategies, such as immunometabolism regulation, in certain populations.”
 

Patients with PASC

The study was conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Investigators recruited 102 patients (median age, 50.5 years; 55% were women) at the Mexico City Temporary Unit with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Of the patients, 44% had mild or moderate COVID-19, 30% had severe cases, and 26% of patients had critical cases. The most frequent comorbidities were obesity (44%), hypertension (24%), and type 2 diabetes (24%). The authors used a questionnaire to assess the presence of symptoms during follow-up. They analyzed immunologic variables at the time of recruitment, as well as levels of cytokines, immunoglobulin G against SARS-CoV-2, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) at 1, 3, and 6 months. At 6 months’ follow-up, 12.7% of the cohort had symptoms compatible with PASC, which was defined for the study as the presence and report of three or more symptoms at 6 months’ follow-up.

As in similar studies, the authors found that female gender, remaining in intensive care, and having had more symptoms and greater titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the acute infection were associated with the development of clinical aspects associated with PASC. Patients who had the disease at 6 months had increased serum levels of interleukin-1 alpha (6.21 pg/mL vs. 2.21 pg/mL), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (55.08 pg/mL vs. 14.68 pg/mL), and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (2,309.40 pg/mL vs. 780 pg/mL). Also, there was a trend toward an increase in serum concentration of interleukin-1 beta, interleukin-6, and interferon-gamma.

Patients whose condition met the definition of persistent PASC had increased expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (42,714 arbitrary units vs. 28,506) 6 months after the acute infection. The authors reported that there was no association between the persistence of PASC and the baseline amount of NETs, TRIM63, and anticellular antibodies. Nor was there an association between PASC and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline and 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis. Nonetheless, patients with persistent PASC had higher titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs 3 months after the onset of COVID-19.

On the basis of previous data, the researchers aimed to construct a preliminary explanatory model to address the clinical and immunologic features associated with persistent PASC 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the univariate analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of persistent PASC were the serum levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (odds ratio, 1.01), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (OR, 1.13), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (OR, 1.00), interleukin-6 (OR, 1.03), the expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (OR, 1.00), and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 1 month (OR, 1.45).

Patients with a diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months were characterized by certain predisposing factors, such as obesity, greater levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 in peripheral blood, greater expression of the senescence CD57 marker in CD8+ T lymphocytes, and persistent symptoms at 3 months.

Using these parameters to construct a predictive model after 3 months, the authors found a sensitivity of 97.7%, specificity of 53.8%, positive predictive value of 93.5%, and a negative predictive value of 77.7% for the diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months.
 

Interpreting CD57

One of the researchers who participated in the study was Luis Martínez-Juárez, MD, MPH, DrPH. He is on the operative solutions team at the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Martínez-Juárez pointed out that one of the contributions of this study was that it specifically examined the Mexican population. He noted that “according to the findings, obesity is not only a comorbidity associated with more severe progressions during acute COVID-19 disease, but also, through inflammation parameters, such as interleukin-6, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha, it’s involved in the development of clinical aspects related to postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín added that finding proinflammatory and obesity parameters in the patients could potentially support the hypothesis of the persistence of virus fragments in adipose tissue as possibly involved in clinical aspects associated with PASC, as some groups have reported in the medical literature.

Angélica Cuapio, MD, DrMed, an immunologist and senior investigator at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who did not participate in the study, said in an interview that the authors’ findings on the sustained increase of the CD57 marker in CD8+ lymphocytes are of notable interest. They may be associated with senescence states or cellular aging or with a stage of chronic viral infections. Therefore, Dr. Cuapio argued, it would have been valuable to include cellular markers of the innate system, such as natural killer cells, since in various infections, an increase in CD57 in lymphocytes is accompanied by an almost proportional increase of this marker in natural killer cells.

“This information would help to determine more accurately if we are talking about a cellular senescence or more about a chronic infection in persistent COVID-19.” The finding is important, but future research is needed in this developing field.

Dr. Cuapio pointed out that the authors found an interesting elevation in interleukin-1 alpha in patients with clinical aspects associated with PASC in a clinically well-characterized population in Mexico. “It is possible that this is a specific marker either of a specific population or location, or this could be an association with a humoral response. Despite the fact that this finding is new and unclear, it is worth investigating. This study is of great value for the scientific community because it’s one more piece in the complex puzzle of clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín noted that the main limitations of the study consist of its single-center design and the small patient sample. Dr. Martínez-Juárez added that the study did not consider reinfections. In future studies, it would be ideal to integrate other molecular assessments associated with various hypotheses of the physiopathology of clinical aspects associated with PASC, such as microbiota alteration, coagulation anomalies, endothelial damage, and dysfunctional neurologic signaling.

The study was supported and funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Gómez-Martín, Dr. Martínez-Juárez, and Dr. Cuapio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Proinflammatory elements mediated through metabolic pathways related to obesity and increased cellular senescence in CD57 expression in CD8+ T cells are associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), according to a Mexican study. The researchers followed a Mexican cohort of 102 patients 3 months and 6 months after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study’s principal investigator was Diana Gómez-Martín, MD, PhD, of the department of immunology and rheumatology at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Mexico City. She told this news organization that follow-up of the patients began with the objective of understanding the determinative clinical, genetic, metabolic, and immunological factors in the progression of the acute disease. However, clinical aspects associated with PASC developed in the selected cohort. As a result, the study was extended, and the clinical, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in this single-center Mexican cohort were evaluated 3 months 6 months after the onset of infection.

Dr. Gómez-Martín explained that the immune senescence in CD57 of CD8+ T cells is one of the best-known findings of the present study. If it is confirmed in future studies, it could have important implications. “Its main implication is the possibility of better understanding the physiopathology of the clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19, potentially being used for early detection and to provide follow-up aimed at patients, in addition to eventually developing targeted therapeutic strategies, such as immunometabolism regulation, in certain populations.”
 

Patients with PASC

The study was conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Investigators recruited 102 patients (median age, 50.5 years; 55% were women) at the Mexico City Temporary Unit with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Of the patients, 44% had mild or moderate COVID-19, 30% had severe cases, and 26% of patients had critical cases. The most frequent comorbidities were obesity (44%), hypertension (24%), and type 2 diabetes (24%). The authors used a questionnaire to assess the presence of symptoms during follow-up. They analyzed immunologic variables at the time of recruitment, as well as levels of cytokines, immunoglobulin G against SARS-CoV-2, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) at 1, 3, and 6 months. At 6 months’ follow-up, 12.7% of the cohort had symptoms compatible with PASC, which was defined for the study as the presence and report of three or more symptoms at 6 months’ follow-up.

As in similar studies, the authors found that female gender, remaining in intensive care, and having had more symptoms and greater titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the acute infection were associated with the development of clinical aspects associated with PASC. Patients who had the disease at 6 months had increased serum levels of interleukin-1 alpha (6.21 pg/mL vs. 2.21 pg/mL), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (55.08 pg/mL vs. 14.68 pg/mL), and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (2,309.40 pg/mL vs. 780 pg/mL). Also, there was a trend toward an increase in serum concentration of interleukin-1 beta, interleukin-6, and interferon-gamma.

Patients whose condition met the definition of persistent PASC had increased expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (42,714 arbitrary units vs. 28,506) 6 months after the acute infection. The authors reported that there was no association between the persistence of PASC and the baseline amount of NETs, TRIM63, and anticellular antibodies. Nor was there an association between PASC and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline and 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis. Nonetheless, patients with persistent PASC had higher titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs 3 months after the onset of COVID-19.

On the basis of previous data, the researchers aimed to construct a preliminary explanatory model to address the clinical and immunologic features associated with persistent PASC 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the univariate analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of persistent PASC were the serum levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (odds ratio, 1.01), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (OR, 1.13), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (OR, 1.00), interleukin-6 (OR, 1.03), the expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (OR, 1.00), and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 1 month (OR, 1.45).

Patients with a diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months were characterized by certain predisposing factors, such as obesity, greater levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 in peripheral blood, greater expression of the senescence CD57 marker in CD8+ T lymphocytes, and persistent symptoms at 3 months.

Using these parameters to construct a predictive model after 3 months, the authors found a sensitivity of 97.7%, specificity of 53.8%, positive predictive value of 93.5%, and a negative predictive value of 77.7% for the diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months.
 

Interpreting CD57

One of the researchers who participated in the study was Luis Martínez-Juárez, MD, MPH, DrPH. He is on the operative solutions team at the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Martínez-Juárez pointed out that one of the contributions of this study was that it specifically examined the Mexican population. He noted that “according to the findings, obesity is not only a comorbidity associated with more severe progressions during acute COVID-19 disease, but also, through inflammation parameters, such as interleukin-6, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha, it’s involved in the development of clinical aspects related to postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín added that finding proinflammatory and obesity parameters in the patients could potentially support the hypothesis of the persistence of virus fragments in adipose tissue as possibly involved in clinical aspects associated with PASC, as some groups have reported in the medical literature.

Angélica Cuapio, MD, DrMed, an immunologist and senior investigator at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who did not participate in the study, said in an interview that the authors’ findings on the sustained increase of the CD57 marker in CD8+ lymphocytes are of notable interest. They may be associated with senescence states or cellular aging or with a stage of chronic viral infections. Therefore, Dr. Cuapio argued, it would have been valuable to include cellular markers of the innate system, such as natural killer cells, since in various infections, an increase in CD57 in lymphocytes is accompanied by an almost proportional increase of this marker in natural killer cells.

“This information would help to determine more accurately if we are talking about a cellular senescence or more about a chronic infection in persistent COVID-19.” The finding is important, but future research is needed in this developing field.

Dr. Cuapio pointed out that the authors found an interesting elevation in interleukin-1 alpha in patients with clinical aspects associated with PASC in a clinically well-characterized population in Mexico. “It is possible that this is a specific marker either of a specific population or location, or this could be an association with a humoral response. Despite the fact that this finding is new and unclear, it is worth investigating. This study is of great value for the scientific community because it’s one more piece in the complex puzzle of clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín noted that the main limitations of the study consist of its single-center design and the small patient sample. Dr. Martínez-Juárez added that the study did not consider reinfections. In future studies, it would be ideal to integrate other molecular assessments associated with various hypotheses of the physiopathology of clinical aspects associated with PASC, such as microbiota alteration, coagulation anomalies, endothelial damage, and dysfunctional neurologic signaling.

The study was supported and funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Gómez-Martín, Dr. Martínez-Juárez, and Dr. Cuapio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Proinflammatory elements mediated through metabolic pathways related to obesity and increased cellular senescence in CD57 expression in CD8+ T cells are associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), according to a Mexican study. The researchers followed a Mexican cohort of 102 patients 3 months and 6 months after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study’s principal investigator was Diana Gómez-Martín, MD, PhD, of the department of immunology and rheumatology at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Mexico City. She told this news organization that follow-up of the patients began with the objective of understanding the determinative clinical, genetic, metabolic, and immunological factors in the progression of the acute disease. However, clinical aspects associated with PASC developed in the selected cohort. As a result, the study was extended, and the clinical, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in this single-center Mexican cohort were evaluated 3 months 6 months after the onset of infection.

Dr. Gómez-Martín explained that the immune senescence in CD57 of CD8+ T cells is one of the best-known findings of the present study. If it is confirmed in future studies, it could have important implications. “Its main implication is the possibility of better understanding the physiopathology of the clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19, potentially being used for early detection and to provide follow-up aimed at patients, in addition to eventually developing targeted therapeutic strategies, such as immunometabolism regulation, in certain populations.”
 

Patients with PASC

The study was conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Investigators recruited 102 patients (median age, 50.5 years; 55% were women) at the Mexico City Temporary Unit with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Of the patients, 44% had mild or moderate COVID-19, 30% had severe cases, and 26% of patients had critical cases. The most frequent comorbidities were obesity (44%), hypertension (24%), and type 2 diabetes (24%). The authors used a questionnaire to assess the presence of symptoms during follow-up. They analyzed immunologic variables at the time of recruitment, as well as levels of cytokines, immunoglobulin G against SARS-CoV-2, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) at 1, 3, and 6 months. At 6 months’ follow-up, 12.7% of the cohort had symptoms compatible with PASC, which was defined for the study as the presence and report of three or more symptoms at 6 months’ follow-up.

As in similar studies, the authors found that female gender, remaining in intensive care, and having had more symptoms and greater titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the acute infection were associated with the development of clinical aspects associated with PASC. Patients who had the disease at 6 months had increased serum levels of interleukin-1 alpha (6.21 pg/mL vs. 2.21 pg/mL), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (55.08 pg/mL vs. 14.68 pg/mL), and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (2,309.40 pg/mL vs. 780 pg/mL). Also, there was a trend toward an increase in serum concentration of interleukin-1 beta, interleukin-6, and interferon-gamma.

Patients whose condition met the definition of persistent PASC had increased expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (42,714 arbitrary units vs. 28,506) 6 months after the acute infection. The authors reported that there was no association between the persistence of PASC and the baseline amount of NETs, TRIM63, and anticellular antibodies. Nor was there an association between PASC and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline and 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis. Nonetheless, patients with persistent PASC had higher titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs 3 months after the onset of COVID-19.

On the basis of previous data, the researchers aimed to construct a preliminary explanatory model to address the clinical and immunologic features associated with persistent PASC 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the univariate analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of persistent PASC were the serum levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (odds ratio, 1.01), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (OR, 1.13), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (OR, 1.00), interleukin-6 (OR, 1.03), the expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (OR, 1.00), and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 1 month (OR, 1.45).

Patients with a diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months were characterized by certain predisposing factors, such as obesity, greater levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 in peripheral blood, greater expression of the senescence CD57 marker in CD8+ T lymphocytes, and persistent symptoms at 3 months.

Using these parameters to construct a predictive model after 3 months, the authors found a sensitivity of 97.7%, specificity of 53.8%, positive predictive value of 93.5%, and a negative predictive value of 77.7% for the diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months.
 

Interpreting CD57

One of the researchers who participated in the study was Luis Martínez-Juárez, MD, MPH, DrPH. He is on the operative solutions team at the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Martínez-Juárez pointed out that one of the contributions of this study was that it specifically examined the Mexican population. He noted that “according to the findings, obesity is not only a comorbidity associated with more severe progressions during acute COVID-19 disease, but also, through inflammation parameters, such as interleukin-6, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha, it’s involved in the development of clinical aspects related to postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín added that finding proinflammatory and obesity parameters in the patients could potentially support the hypothesis of the persistence of virus fragments in adipose tissue as possibly involved in clinical aspects associated with PASC, as some groups have reported in the medical literature.

Angélica Cuapio, MD, DrMed, an immunologist and senior investigator at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who did not participate in the study, said in an interview that the authors’ findings on the sustained increase of the CD57 marker in CD8+ lymphocytes are of notable interest. They may be associated with senescence states or cellular aging or with a stage of chronic viral infections. Therefore, Dr. Cuapio argued, it would have been valuable to include cellular markers of the innate system, such as natural killer cells, since in various infections, an increase in CD57 in lymphocytes is accompanied by an almost proportional increase of this marker in natural killer cells.

“This information would help to determine more accurately if we are talking about a cellular senescence or more about a chronic infection in persistent COVID-19.” The finding is important, but future research is needed in this developing field.

Dr. Cuapio pointed out that the authors found an interesting elevation in interleukin-1 alpha in patients with clinical aspects associated with PASC in a clinically well-characterized population in Mexico. “It is possible that this is a specific marker either of a specific population or location, or this could be an association with a humoral response. Despite the fact that this finding is new and unclear, it is worth investigating. This study is of great value for the scientific community because it’s one more piece in the complex puzzle of clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín noted that the main limitations of the study consist of its single-center design and the small patient sample. Dr. Martínez-Juárez added that the study did not consider reinfections. In future studies, it would be ideal to integrate other molecular assessments associated with various hypotheses of the physiopathology of clinical aspects associated with PASC, such as microbiota alteration, coagulation anomalies, endothelial damage, and dysfunctional neurologic signaling.

The study was supported and funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Gómez-Martín, Dr. Martínez-Juárez, and Dr. Cuapio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. On tonight’s episode, we are going to be talking about back pain. This is based on an interview, Back Pain Update with Dr. Austin Baraki. He gave us some great pearls about how to manage back pain, which we see so much of in primary care. I’ll use one of my famous teaching techniques: If the patient has any kind of back pain, they should just not move. Right?

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right, Matt – we should recommend bedrest until they get better for anyone who has any back pain? No. For back pain, early activity and exercise are great. Patients are often concerned that physical therapy will make their pain worse, so they don’t exercise. This misunderstanding is not surprising. They believe that if they are experiencing pain, it’s facilitating more damage, which is not necessarily the case. It will get better, and a little bit of anticipatory guidance goes a long way in terms of managing patient expectations related to early mobilization, early exercise, and physical therapy.

Dr. Watto: Absolutely. One of the goals of treatment is symptom relief to the extent that we’re able to achieve. We’re not expecting the pain to go to zero. That just doesn’t happen, especially if someone’s on a medication long term. Another goal is return to function. We want them sleeping. We want them to be able to tolerate movement.

We have medications – NSAIDs and muscle relaxants, which are actually tranquilizers. But most therapy for back pain doesn’t involve medications. It involves active movement, so we have to find movement that the patient enjoys doing. Passive treatments, things being done to patients, just don’t work as well.
 

Dr. Williams: We should be clear – we’re talking primarily about chronic back pain here. For acute back pain, we actually have some decent medications, but acute back pain tends to improve no matter what you do. We don’t have much to offer pharmacologically for chronic low back pain. The best modalities usually involve physical activity of some kind.

Dr. Watto: Let’s discuss the evaluation of back pain. Something that always comes up: Should we order imaging, and is there a right time to get it? Dr. Baraki was very clear about when to do imaging. Two big buckets of patients might need imaging.

First, a patient who has a serious underlying condition and you’re using imaging to try to diagnose it; or in a chronic setting, a patient who needs surgery, and imaging is part of the presurgical evaluation. We talked about red flags.

The red flags are major trauma, where we have reason to believe there might be something going on – if we strongly suspect infection, or the patient is injecting drugs. If the patient has a history of cancer, we would be worried that they might have a recurrence. Those are some of the main red flags. With a patient who has osteoporosis or is on chronic steroids, you might even be able to get by with plain films instead of an MRI to look for fracture.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about is, when should we get imaging? Are there any pitfalls we need to worry about?
 

Dr. Williams: I always like podcasts I’m not on because I enjoy listening to them much more. Dr. Baraki talked about the very specific language that is used in radiology reports, such as spondylitis, spondylolysis, and multilevel degenerative disease. They sound bad, but if they are just reframed as age-related degenerative changes, that sounds so much more benign. When discussing with patients, we should avoid medical jargon and say that we saw some changes that we would expect for someone of your age. That sounds so much better than saying we saw multilevel degenerative disease, which sounds like an alarming pathology if you’re not a physician. Without being inaccurate, we should frame the discussion such that we aren’t providing a very specific diagnosis, because that is rarely the case with chronic low back pain. Typically, many things are going on and you may never identify a single unifying diagnosis, which doesn’t tend to help anyway.

Dr. Watto: There’s evidence showing that if the radiology report uses clinical terminology that both clinician and patient think of as less serious, they are less likely to proceed to more invasive treatments. Calling an episode of back pain a “lumbar strain” helps the patient understand that this is a pretty common thing. Almost everyone is going to have an episode of back pain at some point in their life, and almost all of them will get better. Most of the time there’s no serious underlying condition.

This was a great discussion with Dr. Baraki. Click on Back Pain Update with Dr Austin Baraki to hear the full discussion. Until next time, I’ve been Dr. Matthew Frank Watto.
 

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr. Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. On tonight’s episode, we are going to be talking about back pain. This is based on an interview, Back Pain Update with Dr. Austin Baraki. He gave us some great pearls about how to manage back pain, which we see so much of in primary care. I’ll use one of my famous teaching techniques: If the patient has any kind of back pain, they should just not move. Right?

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right, Matt – we should recommend bedrest until they get better for anyone who has any back pain? No. For back pain, early activity and exercise are great. Patients are often concerned that physical therapy will make their pain worse, so they don’t exercise. This misunderstanding is not surprising. They believe that if they are experiencing pain, it’s facilitating more damage, which is not necessarily the case. It will get better, and a little bit of anticipatory guidance goes a long way in terms of managing patient expectations related to early mobilization, early exercise, and physical therapy.

Dr. Watto: Absolutely. One of the goals of treatment is symptom relief to the extent that we’re able to achieve. We’re not expecting the pain to go to zero. That just doesn’t happen, especially if someone’s on a medication long term. Another goal is return to function. We want them sleeping. We want them to be able to tolerate movement.

We have medications – NSAIDs and muscle relaxants, which are actually tranquilizers. But most therapy for back pain doesn’t involve medications. It involves active movement, so we have to find movement that the patient enjoys doing. Passive treatments, things being done to patients, just don’t work as well.
 

Dr. Williams: We should be clear – we’re talking primarily about chronic back pain here. For acute back pain, we actually have some decent medications, but acute back pain tends to improve no matter what you do. We don’t have much to offer pharmacologically for chronic low back pain. The best modalities usually involve physical activity of some kind.

Dr. Watto: Let’s discuss the evaluation of back pain. Something that always comes up: Should we order imaging, and is there a right time to get it? Dr. Baraki was very clear about when to do imaging. Two big buckets of patients might need imaging.

First, a patient who has a serious underlying condition and you’re using imaging to try to diagnose it; or in a chronic setting, a patient who needs surgery, and imaging is part of the presurgical evaluation. We talked about red flags.

The red flags are major trauma, where we have reason to believe there might be something going on – if we strongly suspect infection, or the patient is injecting drugs. If the patient has a history of cancer, we would be worried that they might have a recurrence. Those are some of the main red flags. With a patient who has osteoporosis or is on chronic steroids, you might even be able to get by with plain films instead of an MRI to look for fracture.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about is, when should we get imaging? Are there any pitfalls we need to worry about?
 

Dr. Williams: I always like podcasts I’m not on because I enjoy listening to them much more. Dr. Baraki talked about the very specific language that is used in radiology reports, such as spondylitis, spondylolysis, and multilevel degenerative disease. They sound bad, but if they are just reframed as age-related degenerative changes, that sounds so much more benign. When discussing with patients, we should avoid medical jargon and say that we saw some changes that we would expect for someone of your age. That sounds so much better than saying we saw multilevel degenerative disease, which sounds like an alarming pathology if you’re not a physician. Without being inaccurate, we should frame the discussion such that we aren’t providing a very specific diagnosis, because that is rarely the case with chronic low back pain. Typically, many things are going on and you may never identify a single unifying diagnosis, which doesn’t tend to help anyway.

Dr. Watto: There’s evidence showing that if the radiology report uses clinical terminology that both clinician and patient think of as less serious, they are less likely to proceed to more invasive treatments. Calling an episode of back pain a “lumbar strain” helps the patient understand that this is a pretty common thing. Almost everyone is going to have an episode of back pain at some point in their life, and almost all of them will get better. Most of the time there’s no serious underlying condition.

This was a great discussion with Dr. Baraki. Click on Back Pain Update with Dr Austin Baraki to hear the full discussion. Until next time, I’ve been Dr. Matthew Frank Watto.
 

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr. Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. On tonight’s episode, we are going to be talking about back pain. This is based on an interview, Back Pain Update with Dr. Austin Baraki. He gave us some great pearls about how to manage back pain, which we see so much of in primary care. I’ll use one of my famous teaching techniques: If the patient has any kind of back pain, they should just not move. Right?

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right, Matt – we should recommend bedrest until they get better for anyone who has any back pain? No. For back pain, early activity and exercise are great. Patients are often concerned that physical therapy will make their pain worse, so they don’t exercise. This misunderstanding is not surprising. They believe that if they are experiencing pain, it’s facilitating more damage, which is not necessarily the case. It will get better, and a little bit of anticipatory guidance goes a long way in terms of managing patient expectations related to early mobilization, early exercise, and physical therapy.

Dr. Watto: Absolutely. One of the goals of treatment is symptom relief to the extent that we’re able to achieve. We’re not expecting the pain to go to zero. That just doesn’t happen, especially if someone’s on a medication long term. Another goal is return to function. We want them sleeping. We want them to be able to tolerate movement.

We have medications – NSAIDs and muscle relaxants, which are actually tranquilizers. But most therapy for back pain doesn’t involve medications. It involves active movement, so we have to find movement that the patient enjoys doing. Passive treatments, things being done to patients, just don’t work as well.
 

Dr. Williams: We should be clear – we’re talking primarily about chronic back pain here. For acute back pain, we actually have some decent medications, but acute back pain tends to improve no matter what you do. We don’t have much to offer pharmacologically for chronic low back pain. The best modalities usually involve physical activity of some kind.

Dr. Watto: Let’s discuss the evaluation of back pain. Something that always comes up: Should we order imaging, and is there a right time to get it? Dr. Baraki was very clear about when to do imaging. Two big buckets of patients might need imaging.

First, a patient who has a serious underlying condition and you’re using imaging to try to diagnose it; or in a chronic setting, a patient who needs surgery, and imaging is part of the presurgical evaluation. We talked about red flags.

The red flags are major trauma, where we have reason to believe there might be something going on – if we strongly suspect infection, or the patient is injecting drugs. If the patient has a history of cancer, we would be worried that they might have a recurrence. Those are some of the main red flags. With a patient who has osteoporosis or is on chronic steroids, you might even be able to get by with plain films instead of an MRI to look for fracture.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about is, when should we get imaging? Are there any pitfalls we need to worry about?
 

Dr. Williams: I always like podcasts I’m not on because I enjoy listening to them much more. Dr. Baraki talked about the very specific language that is used in radiology reports, such as spondylitis, spondylolysis, and multilevel degenerative disease. They sound bad, but if they are just reframed as age-related degenerative changes, that sounds so much more benign. When discussing with patients, we should avoid medical jargon and say that we saw some changes that we would expect for someone of your age. That sounds so much better than saying we saw multilevel degenerative disease, which sounds like an alarming pathology if you’re not a physician. Without being inaccurate, we should frame the discussion such that we aren’t providing a very specific diagnosis, because that is rarely the case with chronic low back pain. Typically, many things are going on and you may never identify a single unifying diagnosis, which doesn’t tend to help anyway.

Dr. Watto: There’s evidence showing that if the radiology report uses clinical terminology that both clinician and patient think of as less serious, they are less likely to proceed to more invasive treatments. Calling an episode of back pain a “lumbar strain” helps the patient understand that this is a pretty common thing. Almost everyone is going to have an episode of back pain at some point in their life, and almost all of them will get better. Most of the time there’s no serious underlying condition.

This was a great discussion with Dr. Baraki. Click on Back Pain Update with Dr Austin Baraki to hear the full discussion. Until next time, I’ve been Dr. Matthew Frank Watto.
 

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr. Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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