MDedge Rheumatology

In my last column, I discussed blogging as a great way to capture the attention of anyone interested in your practice, especially prospective patients. If you are already blogging – or would like to consider a less crowded and competitive activity – podcasting might be the answer. At this writing (November 2022), more than 600 million blogs are online, compared with about 2 million podcasts, and relatively few of them are run by physicians. With podcasts, you have a better chance of standing out in a crowded online world.

Starting a podcast is not difficult, but there are several steps you need to go through before launching one.

As with blogging, start by outlining a long-range plan. Your general topic will probably be your specialty, but you will need to narrow your focus to a few specific subjects, such as the problems you see most often, or a subspecialty that you concentrate on. You can always expand your topic later, as you get more popular. Choose a name for your podcast, and purchase a domain name that accurately describes it.

You will also need to choose a hosting service. Numerous inexpensive hosting platforms are available, and a simple Google search will find them for you. Many of them provide free learning materials, helpful creative tools, and customer support to get you through the confusing technical aspects. They can also help you choose a music introduction (to add a bit of polish), and help you piece together your audio segments. Buzzsprout, RSS.com, and Podbean get good reviews on many sites. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned herein.)

Hosting services can assist you in creating a template – a framework that you can reuse each time you record an episode – containing your intro and exit music, tracks for your conversations, etc. This will make your podcasts instantly recognizable each time your listeners tune in.

Many podcasting experts recommend recruiting a co-host. This can be an associate within your practice, a friend who practices elsewhere, or perhaps a resident in an academic setting. You will be able to spread the workload of creating, editing, and promoting. Plus, it is much easier to generate interesting content when two people are having a conversation, rather than one person lecturing from a prepared script. You might also consider having multiple co-hosts, either to expand episodes into group discussions, or to take turns working with you in covering different subjects.

How long you make your podcast is entirely up to you. Some consultants recommend specific time frames, such as 5 minutes (because that’s an average attention span), or 28 minutes (because that’s the average driving commute time). There are short podcasts and long ones; whatever works for you is fine, as long as you don’t drift off the topic. Furthermore, no one says they must all be the same length; when you are finished talking, you are done. And no one says you must stick with one subject throughout. Combining several short segments might hold more listeners’ interest and will make it easier to share small clips on social media.

Content guidelines are similar to those for blogs. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. Talk about subjects – medical and otherwise – that are relevant to your practice or are prominent in the news.

As with blogs, try to avoid polarizing political discussions, and while it’s fine to discuss treatments and procedures that you offer, aggressive solicitation tends to make viewers look elsewhere. Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t portray any specific patients as examples.

When your podcast is ready, your hosting platform will show you how to submit it to iTunes, and how to submit your podcast RSS feed to other podcast directories. As you upload new episodes, your host will automatically update your RSS feed, so that any directory you are listed on will receive the new episode.

Once you are uploaded, you can use your host’s social sharing tools to spread the word. As with blogs, use social media, such as your practice’s Facebook page, to push podcast updates into patients’ feeds and track relevant Twitter hashtags to find online communities that might be interested in your subject matter. You should also find your episode embed code (which your host will have) and place it in a prominent place on your website so patients can listen directly from there.

Transcriptions are another excellent promotional tool. Search engines will “read” your podcasts and list them in searches. Some podcast hosts will do transcribing for a fee, but there are independent transcription services as well.

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

In my last column, I discussed blogging as a great way to capture the attention of anyone interested in your practice, especially prospective patients. If you are already blogging – or would like to consider a less crowded and competitive activity – podcasting might be the answer. At this writing (November 2022), more than 600 million blogs are online, compared with about 2 million podcasts, and relatively few of them are run by physicians. With podcasts, you have a better chance of standing out in a crowded online world.

Starting a podcast is not difficult, but there are several steps you need to go through before launching one.

As with blogging, start by outlining a long-range plan. Your general topic will probably be your specialty, but you will need to narrow your focus to a few specific subjects, such as the problems you see most often, or a subspecialty that you concentrate on. You can always expand your topic later, as you get more popular. Choose a name for your podcast, and purchase a domain name that accurately describes it.

You will also need to choose a hosting service. Numerous inexpensive hosting platforms are available, and a simple Google search will find them for you. Many of them provide free learning materials, helpful creative tools, and customer support to get you through the confusing technical aspects. They can also help you choose a music introduction (to add a bit of polish), and help you piece together your audio segments. Buzzsprout, RSS.com, and Podbean get good reviews on many sites. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned herein.)

Hosting services can assist you in creating a template – a framework that you can reuse each time you record an episode – containing your intro and exit music, tracks for your conversations, etc. This will make your podcasts instantly recognizable each time your listeners tune in.

Many podcasting experts recommend recruiting a co-host. This can be an associate within your practice, a friend who practices elsewhere, or perhaps a resident in an academic setting. You will be able to spread the workload of creating, editing, and promoting. Plus, it is much easier to generate interesting content when two people are having a conversation, rather than one person lecturing from a prepared script. You might also consider having multiple co-hosts, either to expand episodes into group discussions, or to take turns working with you in covering different subjects.

How long you make your podcast is entirely up to you. Some consultants recommend specific time frames, such as 5 minutes (because that’s an average attention span), or 28 minutes (because that’s the average driving commute time). There are short podcasts and long ones; whatever works for you is fine, as long as you don’t drift off the topic. Furthermore, no one says they must all be the same length; when you are finished talking, you are done. And no one says you must stick with one subject throughout. Combining several short segments might hold more listeners’ interest and will make it easier to share small clips on social media.

Content guidelines are similar to those for blogs. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. Talk about subjects – medical and otherwise – that are relevant to your practice or are prominent in the news.

As with blogs, try to avoid polarizing political discussions, and while it’s fine to discuss treatments and procedures that you offer, aggressive solicitation tends to make viewers look elsewhere. Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t portray any specific patients as examples.

When your podcast is ready, your hosting platform will show you how to submit it to iTunes, and how to submit your podcast RSS feed to other podcast directories. As you upload new episodes, your host will automatically update your RSS feed, so that any directory you are listed on will receive the new episode.

Once you are uploaded, you can use your host’s social sharing tools to spread the word. As with blogs, use social media, such as your practice’s Facebook page, to push podcast updates into patients’ feeds and track relevant Twitter hashtags to find online communities that might be interested in your subject matter. You should also find your episode embed code (which your host will have) and place it in a prominent place on your website so patients can listen directly from there.

Transcriptions are another excellent promotional tool. Search engines will “read” your podcasts and list them in searches. Some podcast hosts will do transcribing for a fee, but there are independent transcription services as well.

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

In my last column, I discussed blogging as a great way to capture the attention of anyone interested in your practice, especially prospective patients. If you are already blogging – or would like to consider a less crowded and competitive activity – podcasting might be the answer. At this writing (November 2022), more than 600 million blogs are online, compared with about 2 million podcasts, and relatively few of them are run by physicians. With podcasts, you have a better chance of standing out in a crowded online world.

Starting a podcast is not difficult, but there are several steps you need to go through before launching one.

As with blogging, start by outlining a long-range plan. Your general topic will probably be your specialty, but you will need to narrow your focus to a few specific subjects, such as the problems you see most often, or a subspecialty that you concentrate on. You can always expand your topic later, as you get more popular. Choose a name for your podcast, and purchase a domain name that accurately describes it.

You will also need to choose a hosting service. Numerous inexpensive hosting platforms are available, and a simple Google search will find them for you. Many of them provide free learning materials, helpful creative tools, and customer support to get you through the confusing technical aspects. They can also help you choose a music introduction (to add a bit of polish), and help you piece together your audio segments. Buzzsprout, RSS.com, and Podbean get good reviews on many sites. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned herein.)

Hosting services can assist you in creating a template – a framework that you can reuse each time you record an episode – containing your intro and exit music, tracks for your conversations, etc. This will make your podcasts instantly recognizable each time your listeners tune in.

Many podcasting experts recommend recruiting a co-host. This can be an associate within your practice, a friend who practices elsewhere, or perhaps a resident in an academic setting. You will be able to spread the workload of creating, editing, and promoting. Plus, it is much easier to generate interesting content when two people are having a conversation, rather than one person lecturing from a prepared script. You might also consider having multiple co-hosts, either to expand episodes into group discussions, or to take turns working with you in covering different subjects.

How long you make your podcast is entirely up to you. Some consultants recommend specific time frames, such as 5 minutes (because that’s an average attention span), or 28 minutes (because that’s the average driving commute time). There are short podcasts and long ones; whatever works for you is fine, as long as you don’t drift off the topic. Furthermore, no one says they must all be the same length; when you are finished talking, you are done. And no one says you must stick with one subject throughout. Combining several short segments might hold more listeners’ interest and will make it easier to share small clips on social media.

Content guidelines are similar to those for blogs. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. Talk about subjects – medical and otherwise – that are relevant to your practice or are prominent in the news.

As with blogs, try to avoid polarizing political discussions, and while it’s fine to discuss treatments and procedures that you offer, aggressive solicitation tends to make viewers look elsewhere. Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t portray any specific patients as examples.

When your podcast is ready, your hosting platform will show you how to submit it to iTunes, and how to submit your podcast RSS feed to other podcast directories. As you upload new episodes, your host will automatically update your RSS feed, so that any directory you are listed on will receive the new episode.

Once you are uploaded, you can use your host’s social sharing tools to spread the word. As with blogs, use social media, such as your practice’s Facebook page, to push podcast updates into patients’ feeds and track relevant Twitter hashtags to find online communities that might be interested in your subject matter. You should also find your episode embed code (which your host will have) and place it in a prominent place on your website so patients can listen directly from there.

Transcriptions are another excellent promotional tool. Search engines will “read” your podcasts and list them in searches. Some podcast hosts will do transcribing for a fee, but there are independent transcription services as well.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Aggressive therapy using conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with biologic agents early, soon after a child is diagnosed with polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA), enabled more patients to achieve clinical remission and longer times in inactive disease than more conventional therapeutic approaches, 3-year results of prospective, observational study demonstrated.

The results of The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance STOP-JIA study, which Yukiko Kimura, MD, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed early combination therapy had benefits, compared with other treatment strategies that were more evident at 3 years than at 1 year of study.

“The STOP-JIA study showed that, after 3 years, patients who started a biologic early on in combination with methotrexate spent more time in inactive disease and achieved clinical remission more often when compared to those started on traditional step-up therapy,” Dr. Kimura, chief of pediatric rheumatology at Hackensack (N.J.) Meridian Health and professor of pediatrics at the Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, said at a press conference. “This study shows that the treatment of poly-JIA patients receive initially very early on in their disease matters even 3 years after that treatment was started.”

The study compared three CARRA consensus treatment plans (CTP) for untreated pediatric pJIA patients: step-up (SU) – starting conventional synthetic DMARD therapy and adding a biologic if needed after 3 or more months; early-combination (EC) therapy – starting synthetic and biologic DMARDs together; and biologic first (BF) therapy – starting biologic DMARD monotherapy.

Dr. Kimura explained the rationale for the study. “Since biologic treatments were introduced more than 20 years ago, the prognosis for JIA significantly improved. These very effective medicines often work wonders, quickly reducing pain and inflammation in joint disease activity,” she said in the press conference. “What is not known, however, is when is the best time to start these very effective treatments.”

The most common approach is to start with a synthetic DMARD, typically methotrexate, and wait before starting a biologic, Dr. Kimura said.

“But even though methotrexate can work very well by itself, it does not work for every patient, and we don’t know whether waiting months for it to work and then starting a biologic might potentially lessen their effectiveness,” Dr. Kimura added. “We don’t know if there’s a window of opportunity that’s lost while waiting to see whether methotrexate will work.”

The study originally enrolled 400 patients, 297 of whom completed the 3-year visit – 190 in SU, 76 in EC and 31 in BF. At 12 months, the study found no statistically significant difference in clinically inactive disease (CID) between the groups, Dr. Kimura said.

Even at the 3-year visit, the percentage of patients in CID off glucocorticoids and clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints inactive disease (cJADAS 10 ID) did not differ among the three groups, Dr. Kimura said in presenting the results. “But,” she added, “greater proportions of early-combination CTP group were able to achieve clinical remissions and spend more time with inactive disease in both CID and cJADAS 10.”

A closer look at the outcomes showed some separation between early-combination therapy and the other two treatment plans. The incidence of clinical remission (at any time point over 36 months) was 67.1% in the EC group vs. 49.1% and 47.3%, respectively, in the BF and SU groups, Dr. Kimura said. “The difference between the early-combination and step-up groups was highly significant [P = .007],” she added.

EC also had an edge in the percentage of time patients spent in CID (over 36 months): 39.2% versus 32% and 27.4%, respectively, in the BF and SU groups (P = .006 for EV vs. SU), as well as cJADAS 10 ID (50.6% in EC group vs. 42.8% and 37.5%, respectively in the BF and SU groups; P = .005 for EC vs. SU).

Dr. Kimura said that the STOP JIA trial will continue with longer-term analysis and ongoing monitoring of study patients through the CARRA registry. “These longer-term analyses and readouts will be important because even though the results at 12 months didn’t seem as definitive, it seems the longer we go, the more impact we see of the treatments that were started early on in this disease.”

The findings from this study are “significantly important,” Nina T. Washington, MD, MPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, and the Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital in Tacoma, Wash., said in an interview. “At least for the past decade we’ve really been advocating towards earlier and aggressive therapy, and that’s what this study shows: the sooner you can treat this disease, the sooner you can attack those joints that are inflamed, the better outcome you give the patient.”

The study also confirms that pediatric rheumatologists are not overtreating patients with pJIA, she added.

“In a sense we’re actually treating and preventing and if you have a child that has arthritis, it’s okay to treat that child,” Dr. Washington said. “For me that’s the most reassuring thing: that I’m not necessarily going overboard. If I have a child with polyarticular JIA and they have multiple inflamed joints and I have the evidence as they’re sitting in front of me, and I treat them. I’m going to give them the best outcome.”

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute provided study funding. Dr. Kimura is chair of the CARRA JIA disease research committee and cochair of the CARRA Registry and Research Oversight Committee. She disclosed a financial relationship with Genentech. Dr. Washington has no relevant relationships to disclose.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Aggressive therapy using conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with biologic agents early, soon after a child is diagnosed with polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA), enabled more patients to achieve clinical remission and longer times in inactive disease than more conventional therapeutic approaches, 3-year results of prospective, observational study demonstrated.

The results of The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance STOP-JIA study, which Yukiko Kimura, MD, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed early combination therapy had benefits, compared with other treatment strategies that were more evident at 3 years than at 1 year of study.

“The STOP-JIA study showed that, after 3 years, patients who started a biologic early on in combination with methotrexate spent more time in inactive disease and achieved clinical remission more often when compared to those started on traditional step-up therapy,” Dr. Kimura, chief of pediatric rheumatology at Hackensack (N.J.) Meridian Health and professor of pediatrics at the Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, said at a press conference. “This study shows that the treatment of poly-JIA patients receive initially very early on in their disease matters even 3 years after that treatment was started.”

The study compared three CARRA consensus treatment plans (CTP) for untreated pediatric pJIA patients: step-up (SU) – starting conventional synthetic DMARD therapy and adding a biologic if needed after 3 or more months; early-combination (EC) therapy – starting synthetic and biologic DMARDs together; and biologic first (BF) therapy – starting biologic DMARD monotherapy.

Dr. Kimura explained the rationale for the study. “Since biologic treatments were introduced more than 20 years ago, the prognosis for JIA significantly improved. These very effective medicines often work wonders, quickly reducing pain and inflammation in joint disease activity,” she said in the press conference. “What is not known, however, is when is the best time to start these very effective treatments.”

The most common approach is to start with a synthetic DMARD, typically methotrexate, and wait before starting a biologic, Dr. Kimura said.

“But even though methotrexate can work very well by itself, it does not work for every patient, and we don’t know whether waiting months for it to work and then starting a biologic might potentially lessen their effectiveness,” Dr. Kimura added. “We don’t know if there’s a window of opportunity that’s lost while waiting to see whether methotrexate will work.”

The study originally enrolled 400 patients, 297 of whom completed the 3-year visit – 190 in SU, 76 in EC and 31 in BF. At 12 months, the study found no statistically significant difference in clinically inactive disease (CID) between the groups, Dr. Kimura said.

Even at the 3-year visit, the percentage of patients in CID off glucocorticoids and clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints inactive disease (cJADAS 10 ID) did not differ among the three groups, Dr. Kimura said in presenting the results. “But,” she added, “greater proportions of early-combination CTP group were able to achieve clinical remissions and spend more time with inactive disease in both CID and cJADAS 10.”

A closer look at the outcomes showed some separation between early-combination therapy and the other two treatment plans. The incidence of clinical remission (at any time point over 36 months) was 67.1% in the EC group vs. 49.1% and 47.3%, respectively, in the BF and SU groups, Dr. Kimura said. “The difference between the early-combination and step-up groups was highly significant [P = .007],” she added.

EC also had an edge in the percentage of time patients spent in CID (over 36 months): 39.2% versus 32% and 27.4%, respectively, in the BF and SU groups (P = .006 for EV vs. SU), as well as cJADAS 10 ID (50.6% in EC group vs. 42.8% and 37.5%, respectively in the BF and SU groups; P = .005 for EC vs. SU).

Dr. Kimura said that the STOP JIA trial will continue with longer-term analysis and ongoing monitoring of study patients through the CARRA registry. “These longer-term analyses and readouts will be important because even though the results at 12 months didn’t seem as definitive, it seems the longer we go, the more impact we see of the treatments that were started early on in this disease.”

The findings from this study are “significantly important,” Nina T. Washington, MD, MPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, and the Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital in Tacoma, Wash., said in an interview. “At least for the past decade we’ve really been advocating towards earlier and aggressive therapy, and that’s what this study shows: the sooner you can treat this disease, the sooner you can attack those joints that are inflamed, the better outcome you give the patient.”

The study also confirms that pediatric rheumatologists are not overtreating patients with pJIA, she added.

“In a sense we’re actually treating and preventing and if you have a child that has arthritis, it’s okay to treat that child,” Dr. Washington said. “For me that’s the most reassuring thing: that I’m not necessarily going overboard. If I have a child with polyarticular JIA and they have multiple inflamed joints and I have the evidence as they’re sitting in front of me, and I treat them. I’m going to give them the best outcome.”

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute provided study funding. Dr. Kimura is chair of the CARRA JIA disease research committee and cochair of the CARRA Registry and Research Oversight Committee. She disclosed a financial relationship with Genentech. Dr. Washington has no relevant relationships to disclose.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Aggressive therapy using conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with biologic agents early, soon after a child is diagnosed with polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA), enabled more patients to achieve clinical remission and longer times in inactive disease than more conventional therapeutic approaches, 3-year results of prospective, observational study demonstrated.

The results of The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance STOP-JIA study, which Yukiko Kimura, MD, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed early combination therapy had benefits, compared with other treatment strategies that were more evident at 3 years than at 1 year of study.

“The STOP-JIA study showed that, after 3 years, patients who started a biologic early on in combination with methotrexate spent more time in inactive disease and achieved clinical remission more often when compared to those started on traditional step-up therapy,” Dr. Kimura, chief of pediatric rheumatology at Hackensack (N.J.) Meridian Health and professor of pediatrics at the Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, said at a press conference. “This study shows that the treatment of poly-JIA patients receive initially very early on in their disease matters even 3 years after that treatment was started.”

The study compared three CARRA consensus treatment plans (CTP) for untreated pediatric pJIA patients: step-up (SU) – starting conventional synthetic DMARD therapy and adding a biologic if needed after 3 or more months; early-combination (EC) therapy – starting synthetic and biologic DMARDs together; and biologic first (BF) therapy – starting biologic DMARD monotherapy.

Dr. Kimura explained the rationale for the study. “Since biologic treatments were introduced more than 20 years ago, the prognosis for JIA significantly improved. These very effective medicines often work wonders, quickly reducing pain and inflammation in joint disease activity,” she said in the press conference. “What is not known, however, is when is the best time to start these very effective treatments.”

The most common approach is to start with a synthetic DMARD, typically methotrexate, and wait before starting a biologic, Dr. Kimura said.

“But even though methotrexate can work very well by itself, it does not work for every patient, and we don’t know whether waiting months for it to work and then starting a biologic might potentially lessen their effectiveness,” Dr. Kimura added. “We don’t know if there’s a window of opportunity that’s lost while waiting to see whether methotrexate will work.”

The study originally enrolled 400 patients, 297 of whom completed the 3-year visit – 190 in SU, 76 in EC and 31 in BF. At 12 months, the study found no statistically significant difference in clinically inactive disease (CID) between the groups, Dr. Kimura said.

Even at the 3-year visit, the percentage of patients in CID off glucocorticoids and clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints inactive disease (cJADAS 10 ID) did not differ among the three groups, Dr. Kimura said in presenting the results. “But,” she added, “greater proportions of early-combination CTP group were able to achieve clinical remissions and spend more time with inactive disease in both CID and cJADAS 10.”

A closer look at the outcomes showed some separation between early-combination therapy and the other two treatment plans. The incidence of clinical remission (at any time point over 36 months) was 67.1% in the EC group vs. 49.1% and 47.3%, respectively, in the BF and SU groups, Dr. Kimura said. “The difference between the early-combination and step-up groups was highly significant [P = .007],” she added.

EC also had an edge in the percentage of time patients spent in CID (over 36 months): 39.2% versus 32% and 27.4%, respectively, in the BF and SU groups (P = .006 for EV vs. SU), as well as cJADAS 10 ID (50.6% in EC group vs. 42.8% and 37.5%, respectively in the BF and SU groups; P = .005 for EC vs. SU).

Dr. Kimura said that the STOP JIA trial will continue with longer-term analysis and ongoing monitoring of study patients through the CARRA registry. “These longer-term analyses and readouts will be important because even though the results at 12 months didn’t seem as definitive, it seems the longer we go, the more impact we see of the treatments that were started early on in this disease.”

The findings from this study are “significantly important,” Nina T. Washington, MD, MPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, and the Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital in Tacoma, Wash., said in an interview. “At least for the past decade we’ve really been advocating towards earlier and aggressive therapy, and that’s what this study shows: the sooner you can treat this disease, the sooner you can attack those joints that are inflamed, the better outcome you give the patient.”

The study also confirms that pediatric rheumatologists are not overtreating patients with pJIA, she added.

“In a sense we’re actually treating and preventing and if you have a child that has arthritis, it’s okay to treat that child,” Dr. Washington said. “For me that’s the most reassuring thing: that I’m not necessarily going overboard. If I have a child with polyarticular JIA and they have multiple inflamed joints and I have the evidence as they’re sitting in front of me, and I treat them. I’m going to give them the best outcome.”

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute provided study funding. Dr. Kimura is chair of the CARRA JIA disease research committee and cochair of the CARRA Registry and Research Oversight Committee. She disclosed a financial relationship with Genentech. Dr. Washington has no relevant relationships to disclose.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus treated with lower doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had an increased risk for hospitalization for flares, according to study results presented during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Doses decreased with changing guidelines

Guidelines over the years have recommended decreasing doses of HCQ. In 2011, ophthalmology guidelines recommended limiting HCQ dosing to 6.5 mg/kg per day or less of ideal body weight to reduce the chance of retinopathy. For many patients, this required a dose lower than 400 mg/day, an amount frequently used to treat lupus.

In 2016, updated guidelines further lowered the dosage of HCQ, recommending 5 mg/kg or less of patient’s actual body weight.

The effects that lower dosing has had on SLE-associated hospitalizations was unknown, which inspired Dr. Nestor’s research.

The team conducted a case-crossover study within the Mass General Brigham SLE cohort.

Hospitalizations studied over a decade

Dr. Nestor and colleagues identified patients with SLE (via electronic health records) who had at least one visit for SLE and were prescribed HCQ between January 2011 and December 2021, the period over which the recommendations were made.

They identified patients who had been hospitalized during that decade with SLE as the primary discharge diagnosis.

Patients were excluded if they had non-SLE indications, such as kidney transplant or infection without a concomitant SLE flare.

Of 2,971 patients with SLE who used HCQ, 576 had at least one hospitalization with primary discharge diagnosis of SLE.

Of these, 108 were hospitalized for an SLE flare and had used HCQ prior to that hospitalization and had at least one control period with HCQ use during the study period.

All of the patients in the study had to have a case period and a control period, Dr. Nestor explained. The case period was 6 months on HCQ ending in hospitalization for lupus and the control period was 6 months on HCQ that did not end in hospitalization for lupus.
 

Significantly increased hospitalizations

Low-dose HCQ by weight-based dose (≤ 5 vs. > 5 mg/kg per day) and by non–weight-based dose (< 400 vs. 400 mg per day) were both associated with significantly increased hospitalizations for SLE (adjusted odds ratio, 4.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-12.98; and AOR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.33-9.13, respectively).

The average age of the hospitalized group was 36 years. Most patients (92%) were female, 43.5% were White, and 32.4% were Black.

In calling for reassessment of the dosing, Dr. Nestor said, “We are protecting our patients against a very long-term side effect of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. [It] typically takes 10-20 years to develop in our patients. But by doing that, we’re missing many of the short-term benefits from hydroxychloroquine in our patients, leading to more lupus flares, which leads to more end-organ damage.”

She said patients taking HCQ for lupus are asked to see an ophthalmologist once a year to monitor for the side effect, adding that rheumatologists and ophthalmologists could work together to adjust the guidelines.

Dr. Nestor suggested it’s possible that patients need higher doses of HCQ earlier in their disease and lower doses later. “Perhaps it’s just the patients who are particularly active who need the higher doses,” she said.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus treated with lower doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had an increased risk for hospitalization for flares, according to study results presented during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Doses decreased with changing guidelines

Guidelines over the years have recommended decreasing doses of HCQ. In 2011, ophthalmology guidelines recommended limiting HCQ dosing to 6.5 mg/kg per day or less of ideal body weight to reduce the chance of retinopathy. For many patients, this required a dose lower than 400 mg/day, an amount frequently used to treat lupus.

In 2016, updated guidelines further lowered the dosage of HCQ, recommending 5 mg/kg or less of patient’s actual body weight.

The effects that lower dosing has had on SLE-associated hospitalizations was unknown, which inspired Dr. Nestor’s research.

The team conducted a case-crossover study within the Mass General Brigham SLE cohort.

Hospitalizations studied over a decade

Dr. Nestor and colleagues identified patients with SLE (via electronic health records) who had at least one visit for SLE and were prescribed HCQ between January 2011 and December 2021, the period over which the recommendations were made.

They identified patients who had been hospitalized during that decade with SLE as the primary discharge diagnosis.

Patients were excluded if they had non-SLE indications, such as kidney transplant or infection without a concomitant SLE flare.

Of 2,971 patients with SLE who used HCQ, 576 had at least one hospitalization with primary discharge diagnosis of SLE.

Of these, 108 were hospitalized for an SLE flare and had used HCQ prior to that hospitalization and had at least one control period with HCQ use during the study period.

All of the patients in the study had to have a case period and a control period, Dr. Nestor explained. The case period was 6 months on HCQ ending in hospitalization for lupus and the control period was 6 months on HCQ that did not end in hospitalization for lupus.
 

Significantly increased hospitalizations

Low-dose HCQ by weight-based dose (≤ 5 vs. > 5 mg/kg per day) and by non–weight-based dose (< 400 vs. 400 mg per day) were both associated with significantly increased hospitalizations for SLE (adjusted odds ratio, 4.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-12.98; and AOR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.33-9.13, respectively).

The average age of the hospitalized group was 36 years. Most patients (92%) were female, 43.5% were White, and 32.4% were Black.

In calling for reassessment of the dosing, Dr. Nestor said, “We are protecting our patients against a very long-term side effect of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. [It] typically takes 10-20 years to develop in our patients. But by doing that, we’re missing many of the short-term benefits from hydroxychloroquine in our patients, leading to more lupus flares, which leads to more end-organ damage.”

She said patients taking HCQ for lupus are asked to see an ophthalmologist once a year to monitor for the side effect, adding that rheumatologists and ophthalmologists could work together to adjust the guidelines.

Dr. Nestor suggested it’s possible that patients need higher doses of HCQ earlier in their disease and lower doses later. “Perhaps it’s just the patients who are particularly active who need the higher doses,” she said.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus treated with lower doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had an increased risk for hospitalization for flares, according to study results presented during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Doses decreased with changing guidelines

Guidelines over the years have recommended decreasing doses of HCQ. In 2011, ophthalmology guidelines recommended limiting HCQ dosing to 6.5 mg/kg per day or less of ideal body weight to reduce the chance of retinopathy. For many patients, this required a dose lower than 400 mg/day, an amount frequently used to treat lupus.

In 2016, updated guidelines further lowered the dosage of HCQ, recommending 5 mg/kg or less of patient’s actual body weight.

The effects that lower dosing has had on SLE-associated hospitalizations was unknown, which inspired Dr. Nestor’s research.

The team conducted a case-crossover study within the Mass General Brigham SLE cohort.

Hospitalizations studied over a decade

Dr. Nestor and colleagues identified patients with SLE (via electronic health records) who had at least one visit for SLE and were prescribed HCQ between January 2011 and December 2021, the period over which the recommendations were made.

They identified patients who had been hospitalized during that decade with SLE as the primary discharge diagnosis.

Patients were excluded if they had non-SLE indications, such as kidney transplant or infection without a concomitant SLE flare.

Of 2,971 patients with SLE who used HCQ, 576 had at least one hospitalization with primary discharge diagnosis of SLE.

Of these, 108 were hospitalized for an SLE flare and had used HCQ prior to that hospitalization and had at least one control period with HCQ use during the study period.

All of the patients in the study had to have a case period and a control period, Dr. Nestor explained. The case period was 6 months on HCQ ending in hospitalization for lupus and the control period was 6 months on HCQ that did not end in hospitalization for lupus.
 

Significantly increased hospitalizations

Low-dose HCQ by weight-based dose (≤ 5 vs. > 5 mg/kg per day) and by non–weight-based dose (< 400 vs. 400 mg per day) were both associated with significantly increased hospitalizations for SLE (adjusted odds ratio, 4.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-12.98; and AOR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.33-9.13, respectively).

The average age of the hospitalized group was 36 years. Most patients (92%) were female, 43.5% were White, and 32.4% were Black.

In calling for reassessment of the dosing, Dr. Nestor said, “We are protecting our patients against a very long-term side effect of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. [It] typically takes 10-20 years to develop in our patients. But by doing that, we’re missing many of the short-term benefits from hydroxychloroquine in our patients, leading to more lupus flares, which leads to more end-organ damage.”

She said patients taking HCQ for lupus are asked to see an ophthalmologist once a year to monitor for the side effect, adding that rheumatologists and ophthalmologists could work together to adjust the guidelines.

Dr. Nestor suggested it’s possible that patients need higher doses of HCQ earlier in their disease and lower doses later. “Perhaps it’s just the patients who are particularly active who need the higher doses,” she said.

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

Adults who underwent either total ankle replacement or ankle fusion for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis showed similar clinical scores and adverse event numbers, in a randomized controlled trial of approximately 300 patients.

Ankle osteoarthritis remains a cause of severe pain and disability. Patients are treated nonoperatively if possible, but surgery is often needed for individuals with end-stage disease, wrote Andrew Goldberg, MBBS, of University College London and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Most patients with ankle arthritis respond to nonoperative treatments, such as weight loss, activity modification, support braces, and analgesia, [but] once the disease has progressed to end-stage osteoarthritis, the main surgical treatments are total ankle re-placement or ankle arthrodesis,” Dr. Goldberg said, in an interview.

In the new study, patients were randomized to receive either a total ankle replacement (TAR) or ankle fusion (AF).

“We showed that, in both treatment groups the clinical scores improved hugely, by more than three times the minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Goldberg said in an interview.

“Although the ankle replacement arm improved, on average, by more than an extra 4 points over ankle fusion, this was not considered clinically or statistically significant,” he said.

The study is the first randomized trial to show high-quality and robust results, he noted, and findings support data from previous studies.

“Although both TAR and ankle fusion have been shown to be effective, they are very different treatments, with one fusing the bones so that there is no ankle joint movement, and the other replacing the joint with the aim of retaining ankle joint movement. It is difficult for a patient to know which treatment is more suitable for them, with most seeking guidance from their surgeon,” he said.

Generating high-quality evidence

The study, a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial known as TARVA (Total Ankle Replacement Versus Ankle Arthrodesis), aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of the two existing publicly funded U.K. treatment options, the authors wrote.

Patients were recruited at 17 U.K. centers between March 6, 2015, and Jan. 10, 2019. The study enrolled 303 adults aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. The mean age of the participants was 68 years; 71% were men. A total of 137 TAR patients and 144 ankle fusion patients completed their surgeries with clinical scores available for analysis. Baseline characteristics were mainly similar between the groups.

Blinding was not possible because of the nature of the procedures, but the surgeons who screened the patients were not aware of the randomization allocations, the researchers noted. A total of 33 surgeons participated in the trial, with a median number of seven patients per surgeon during the study period.

For TAR, U.K. surgeons use both two-component, fixed-bearing and three-component, mobile-bearing implants, the authors write. Ankle fusion was done using the surgeon’s usual technique of either arthroscopic-assisted or open ankle fusion.

The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing (MOXFQ-W/S) domain scores from baseline to 52 weeks after surgery. The MOXFQ-W/S uses a scale of 0-100, with lower scores representing better outcomes. Secondary outcomes included change in the MOXFQ-W/S scores at 26 weeks after surgery, as well as measures of patient quality of life.

No statistically significant difference

Overall, the mean MOXFQ-W/S scores improved significantly from baseline to 52 weeks for both groups, with average improvements of 49.9 in the TAR group and 44.4 points in the AF group. The average scores at 52 weeks were 31.4 in the TAR group and 36.8 in the AF group.

The adjusted difference in score change from baseline was –5.56, showing a slightly greater degree of improvement with TAR, but this difference was not clinically or statistically significant, the researchers noted.

Adverse event numbers were similar for both procedures, with 54% of TAR patients and 53% of AF patients experiencing at least 1 adverse event during the study period. Of those, 18% of TAR patients and 24% of AF patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event.

However, the TAR patients experienced a higher rate of wound healing complications and nerve injuries, while thromboembolism was higher in the AF patients, the researchers noted.

A prespecified subgroup analysis of patients with osteoarthritis in adjacent joints suggested a greater improvement in TAR, compared with AF, a difference that increased when fixed-bearing TAR was compared with AF, the authors wrote.

“This reinforces previous reports that suggest that the presence of adjacent joint arthritis may be an indication for ankle replacement over AF,” the authors wrote in their discussion.

“Many of these patients did not have any symptoms in the adjacent joints,” they noted.

“The presence of adjacent joint arthritis, meaning the wear and tear of the joints around the ankle joint, seemed to favor ankle replacement,” Dr. Goldberg said. Approximately 30 joints in the foot continue to move after the ankle is fused, and if these adjacent joints are not healthy before surgery [as was the case in 42% of the study patients], the results of fusion were less successful, he explained.

A post hoc analysis between TAR subtypes showed that patients who had fixed-bearing TAR had significantly greater improvements, compared with AF patients, but this difference was not observed in patients who had mobile-bearing TAR, the researchers noted.

Dr. Goldberg said it was surprising “that, in a separate analysis, we found that the fixed-bearing ankle replacement patients [who accounted for half of the implants used] improved by a much greater difference when compared to ankle fusion.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the short follow-up and study design that allowed surgeons to choose any implant and technique, the researchers noted.

Other limitations include a lack of data on cost-effectiveness and the impact of comorbidities on outcomes, they wrote. However, the study is the first completed multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare TAR and AF procedures for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis and shows that both yield similar clinical improvements, they concluded.

Data can inform treatment discussion

The take-home messages for clinicians are that both ankle replacement and ankle fusion are effective treatments that improve patients’ quality of life, and it is important to establish the health of adjacent joints before making treatment recommendations, Dr. Goldberg said.

“Careful counseling on the relative risks of each procedure should be part of the informed consent process,” he added. Ideally, all patients seeking surgical care for ankle arthritis should have a choice between ankle replacement and ankle fusion, but sometimes there is inequity of provision of the two treatments, he noted.

“We now encourage all surgeons to work in ankle arthritis networks so that every patient, no matter where they live, can have choice about the best treatment for them,” he said.

Researchers met the challenge of surgical RCT

Randomized trials of surgical interventions are challenging to conduct, and therefore limited, wrote Bruce Sangeorzan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. However, the new study was strengthened by the inclusion of 17 centers for heterogeneity of implant type and surgeon experience level, the editorialists said in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study is especially important, because ankle arthritis treatment is very understudied, compared with hip and knee arthritis, but it has a similar impact on activity, editorial coauthor Dr. Sangeorzan said in an interview.

“Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for comparing medical therapies,” he said, “but they are very difficult to do in surgical treatments, particularly when the two treatments can be differentiated, in this case by movement of the ankle.”

In addition, there is a strong placebo effect attached to interventions, Dr. Sangeorzan noted. “Determining best-case treatment relies on prospective research, preferably randomized. Since both ankle fusion and ankle replacement are effective therapies, a prospective randomized trial is the best way to help make treatment decisions,” he said.

The current study findings are not surprising, but they are preliminary, and 1 year of follow-up is not enough to determine effectiveness, Dr. Sangeorzan emphasized. However, “the authors have done the hard work of randomizing the patients and collecting the data, and the patients can now be followed for a longer time,” he said.

“In addition, the trial was designed with multiple secondary outcome measures, so the data can be matched up with larger trials that were not randomized to identify key elements of success for each procedure,” he noted.

The key message for clinicians is that ankle arthritis has a significant impact on patients’ lives, but there are two effective treatments that can reduce the impact of the disease, said Dr. Sangeorzan. “The data suggest that there are differences in implant design and differences in comorbidities that should influence decision-making,” he added.

Additional research is needed in the form of a longer study duration with larger cohorts, said Dr. Sangeorzan. In particular, researchers need to determine what comorbidities might drive patients to one type of care vs. another, he said. “The suggestion that [patients receiving implants with two motion segments have better outcomes than those receiving implants with a one-motion segment] also deserves further study,” he added.

The research was supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. The trial was sponsored by University College London. Dr. Goldberg disclosed grant support from NIHR HTA, as well as financial relationships with companies including Stryker, Paragon 28, and stock options with Standing CT Company, Elstree Waterfront Outpatients, and X Bolt Orthopedics.

The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults who underwent either total ankle replacement or ankle fusion for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis showed similar clinical scores and adverse event numbers, in a randomized controlled trial of approximately 300 patients.

Ankle osteoarthritis remains a cause of severe pain and disability. Patients are treated nonoperatively if possible, but surgery is often needed for individuals with end-stage disease, wrote Andrew Goldberg, MBBS, of University College London and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Most patients with ankle arthritis respond to nonoperative treatments, such as weight loss, activity modification, support braces, and analgesia, [but] once the disease has progressed to end-stage osteoarthritis, the main surgical treatments are total ankle re-placement or ankle arthrodesis,” Dr. Goldberg said, in an interview.

In the new study, patients were randomized to receive either a total ankle replacement (TAR) or ankle fusion (AF).

“We showed that, in both treatment groups the clinical scores improved hugely, by more than three times the minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Goldberg said in an interview.

“Although the ankle replacement arm improved, on average, by more than an extra 4 points over ankle fusion, this was not considered clinically or statistically significant,” he said.

The study is the first randomized trial to show high-quality and robust results, he noted, and findings support data from previous studies.

“Although both TAR and ankle fusion have been shown to be effective, they are very different treatments, with one fusing the bones so that there is no ankle joint movement, and the other replacing the joint with the aim of retaining ankle joint movement. It is difficult for a patient to know which treatment is more suitable for them, with most seeking guidance from their surgeon,” he said.

Generating high-quality evidence

The study, a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial known as TARVA (Total Ankle Replacement Versus Ankle Arthrodesis), aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of the two existing publicly funded U.K. treatment options, the authors wrote.

Patients were recruited at 17 U.K. centers between March 6, 2015, and Jan. 10, 2019. The study enrolled 303 adults aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. The mean age of the participants was 68 years; 71% were men. A total of 137 TAR patients and 144 ankle fusion patients completed their surgeries with clinical scores available for analysis. Baseline characteristics were mainly similar between the groups.

Blinding was not possible because of the nature of the procedures, but the surgeons who screened the patients were not aware of the randomization allocations, the researchers noted. A total of 33 surgeons participated in the trial, with a median number of seven patients per surgeon during the study period.

For TAR, U.K. surgeons use both two-component, fixed-bearing and three-component, mobile-bearing implants, the authors write. Ankle fusion was done using the surgeon’s usual technique of either arthroscopic-assisted or open ankle fusion.

The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing (MOXFQ-W/S) domain scores from baseline to 52 weeks after surgery. The MOXFQ-W/S uses a scale of 0-100, with lower scores representing better outcomes. Secondary outcomes included change in the MOXFQ-W/S scores at 26 weeks after surgery, as well as measures of patient quality of life.

No statistically significant difference

Overall, the mean MOXFQ-W/S scores improved significantly from baseline to 52 weeks for both groups, with average improvements of 49.9 in the TAR group and 44.4 points in the AF group. The average scores at 52 weeks were 31.4 in the TAR group and 36.8 in the AF group.

The adjusted difference in score change from baseline was –5.56, showing a slightly greater degree of improvement with TAR, but this difference was not clinically or statistically significant, the researchers noted.

Adverse event numbers were similar for both procedures, with 54% of TAR patients and 53% of AF patients experiencing at least 1 adverse event during the study period. Of those, 18% of TAR patients and 24% of AF patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event.

However, the TAR patients experienced a higher rate of wound healing complications and nerve injuries, while thromboembolism was higher in the AF patients, the researchers noted.

A prespecified subgroup analysis of patients with osteoarthritis in adjacent joints suggested a greater improvement in TAR, compared with AF, a difference that increased when fixed-bearing TAR was compared with AF, the authors wrote.

“This reinforces previous reports that suggest that the presence of adjacent joint arthritis may be an indication for ankle replacement over AF,” the authors wrote in their discussion.

“Many of these patients did not have any symptoms in the adjacent joints,” they noted.

“The presence of adjacent joint arthritis, meaning the wear and tear of the joints around the ankle joint, seemed to favor ankle replacement,” Dr. Goldberg said. Approximately 30 joints in the foot continue to move after the ankle is fused, and if these adjacent joints are not healthy before surgery [as was the case in 42% of the study patients], the results of fusion were less successful, he explained.

A post hoc analysis between TAR subtypes showed that patients who had fixed-bearing TAR had significantly greater improvements, compared with AF patients, but this difference was not observed in patients who had mobile-bearing TAR, the researchers noted.

Dr. Goldberg said it was surprising “that, in a separate analysis, we found that the fixed-bearing ankle replacement patients [who accounted for half of the implants used] improved by a much greater difference when compared to ankle fusion.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the short follow-up and study design that allowed surgeons to choose any implant and technique, the researchers noted.

Other limitations include a lack of data on cost-effectiveness and the impact of comorbidities on outcomes, they wrote. However, the study is the first completed multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare TAR and AF procedures for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis and shows that both yield similar clinical improvements, they concluded.

Data can inform treatment discussion

The take-home messages for clinicians are that both ankle replacement and ankle fusion are effective treatments that improve patients’ quality of life, and it is important to establish the health of adjacent joints before making treatment recommendations, Dr. Goldberg said.

“Careful counseling on the relative risks of each procedure should be part of the informed consent process,” he added. Ideally, all patients seeking surgical care for ankle arthritis should have a choice between ankle replacement and ankle fusion, but sometimes there is inequity of provision of the two treatments, he noted.

“We now encourage all surgeons to work in ankle arthritis networks so that every patient, no matter where they live, can have choice about the best treatment for them,” he said.

Researchers met the challenge of surgical RCT

Randomized trials of surgical interventions are challenging to conduct, and therefore limited, wrote Bruce Sangeorzan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. However, the new study was strengthened by the inclusion of 17 centers for heterogeneity of implant type and surgeon experience level, the editorialists said in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study is especially important, because ankle arthritis treatment is very understudied, compared with hip and knee arthritis, but it has a similar impact on activity, editorial coauthor Dr. Sangeorzan said in an interview.

“Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for comparing medical therapies,” he said, “but they are very difficult to do in surgical treatments, particularly when the two treatments can be differentiated, in this case by movement of the ankle.”

In addition, there is a strong placebo effect attached to interventions, Dr. Sangeorzan noted. “Determining best-case treatment relies on prospective research, preferably randomized. Since both ankle fusion and ankle replacement are effective therapies, a prospective randomized trial is the best way to help make treatment decisions,” he said.

The current study findings are not surprising, but they are preliminary, and 1 year of follow-up is not enough to determine effectiveness, Dr. Sangeorzan emphasized. However, “the authors have done the hard work of randomizing the patients and collecting the data, and the patients can now be followed for a longer time,” he said.

“In addition, the trial was designed with multiple secondary outcome measures, so the data can be matched up with larger trials that were not randomized to identify key elements of success for each procedure,” he noted.

The key message for clinicians is that ankle arthritis has a significant impact on patients’ lives, but there are two effective treatments that can reduce the impact of the disease, said Dr. Sangeorzan. “The data suggest that there are differences in implant design and differences in comorbidities that should influence decision-making,” he added.

Additional research is needed in the form of a longer study duration with larger cohorts, said Dr. Sangeorzan. In particular, researchers need to determine what comorbidities might drive patients to one type of care vs. another, he said. “The suggestion that [patients receiving implants with two motion segments have better outcomes than those receiving implants with a one-motion segment] also deserves further study,” he added.

The research was supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. The trial was sponsored by University College London. Dr. Goldberg disclosed grant support from NIHR HTA, as well as financial relationships with companies including Stryker, Paragon 28, and stock options with Standing CT Company, Elstree Waterfront Outpatients, and X Bolt Orthopedics.

The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults who underwent either total ankle replacement or ankle fusion for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis showed similar clinical scores and adverse event numbers, in a randomized controlled trial of approximately 300 patients.

Ankle osteoarthritis remains a cause of severe pain and disability. Patients are treated nonoperatively if possible, but surgery is often needed for individuals with end-stage disease, wrote Andrew Goldberg, MBBS, of University College London and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Most patients with ankle arthritis respond to nonoperative treatments, such as weight loss, activity modification, support braces, and analgesia, [but] once the disease has progressed to end-stage osteoarthritis, the main surgical treatments are total ankle re-placement or ankle arthrodesis,” Dr. Goldberg said, in an interview.

In the new study, patients were randomized to receive either a total ankle replacement (TAR) or ankle fusion (AF).

“We showed that, in both treatment groups the clinical scores improved hugely, by more than three times the minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Goldberg said in an interview.

“Although the ankle replacement arm improved, on average, by more than an extra 4 points over ankle fusion, this was not considered clinically or statistically significant,” he said.

The study is the first randomized trial to show high-quality and robust results, he noted, and findings support data from previous studies.

“Although both TAR and ankle fusion have been shown to be effective, they are very different treatments, with one fusing the bones so that there is no ankle joint movement, and the other replacing the joint with the aim of retaining ankle joint movement. It is difficult for a patient to know which treatment is more suitable for them, with most seeking guidance from their surgeon,” he said.

Generating high-quality evidence

The study, a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial known as TARVA (Total Ankle Replacement Versus Ankle Arthrodesis), aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of the two existing publicly funded U.K. treatment options, the authors wrote.

Patients were recruited at 17 U.K. centers between March 6, 2015, and Jan. 10, 2019. The study enrolled 303 adults aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. The mean age of the participants was 68 years; 71% were men. A total of 137 TAR patients and 144 ankle fusion patients completed their surgeries with clinical scores available for analysis. Baseline characteristics were mainly similar between the groups.

Blinding was not possible because of the nature of the procedures, but the surgeons who screened the patients were not aware of the randomization allocations, the researchers noted. A total of 33 surgeons participated in the trial, with a median number of seven patients per surgeon during the study period.

For TAR, U.K. surgeons use both two-component, fixed-bearing and three-component, mobile-bearing implants, the authors write. Ankle fusion was done using the surgeon’s usual technique of either arthroscopic-assisted or open ankle fusion.

The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing (MOXFQ-W/S) domain scores from baseline to 52 weeks after surgery. The MOXFQ-W/S uses a scale of 0-100, with lower scores representing better outcomes. Secondary outcomes included change in the MOXFQ-W/S scores at 26 weeks after surgery, as well as measures of patient quality of life.

No statistically significant difference

Overall, the mean MOXFQ-W/S scores improved significantly from baseline to 52 weeks for both groups, with average improvements of 49.9 in the TAR group and 44.4 points in the AF group. The average scores at 52 weeks were 31.4 in the TAR group and 36.8 in the AF group.

The adjusted difference in score change from baseline was –5.56, showing a slightly greater degree of improvement with TAR, but this difference was not clinically or statistically significant, the researchers noted.

Adverse event numbers were similar for both procedures, with 54% of TAR patients and 53% of AF patients experiencing at least 1 adverse event during the study period. Of those, 18% of TAR patients and 24% of AF patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event.

However, the TAR patients experienced a higher rate of wound healing complications and nerve injuries, while thromboembolism was higher in the AF patients, the researchers noted.

A prespecified subgroup analysis of patients with osteoarthritis in adjacent joints suggested a greater improvement in TAR, compared with AF, a difference that increased when fixed-bearing TAR was compared with AF, the authors wrote.

“This reinforces previous reports that suggest that the presence of adjacent joint arthritis may be an indication for ankle replacement over AF,” the authors wrote in their discussion.

“Many of these patients did not have any symptoms in the adjacent joints,” they noted.

“The presence of adjacent joint arthritis, meaning the wear and tear of the joints around the ankle joint, seemed to favor ankle replacement,” Dr. Goldberg said. Approximately 30 joints in the foot continue to move after the ankle is fused, and if these adjacent joints are not healthy before surgery [as was the case in 42% of the study patients], the results of fusion were less successful, he explained.

A post hoc analysis between TAR subtypes showed that patients who had fixed-bearing TAR had significantly greater improvements, compared with AF patients, but this difference was not observed in patients who had mobile-bearing TAR, the researchers noted.

Dr. Goldberg said it was surprising “that, in a separate analysis, we found that the fixed-bearing ankle replacement patients [who accounted for half of the implants used] improved by a much greater difference when compared to ankle fusion.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the short follow-up and study design that allowed surgeons to choose any implant and technique, the researchers noted.

Other limitations include a lack of data on cost-effectiveness and the impact of comorbidities on outcomes, they wrote. However, the study is the first completed multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare TAR and AF procedures for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis and shows that both yield similar clinical improvements, they concluded.

Data can inform treatment discussion

The take-home messages for clinicians are that both ankle replacement and ankle fusion are effective treatments that improve patients’ quality of life, and it is important to establish the health of adjacent joints before making treatment recommendations, Dr. Goldberg said.

“Careful counseling on the relative risks of each procedure should be part of the informed consent process,” he added. Ideally, all patients seeking surgical care for ankle arthritis should have a choice between ankle replacement and ankle fusion, but sometimes there is inequity of provision of the two treatments, he noted.

“We now encourage all surgeons to work in ankle arthritis networks so that every patient, no matter where they live, can have choice about the best treatment for them,” he said.

Researchers met the challenge of surgical RCT

Randomized trials of surgical interventions are challenging to conduct, and therefore limited, wrote Bruce Sangeorzan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. However, the new study was strengthened by the inclusion of 17 centers for heterogeneity of implant type and surgeon experience level, the editorialists said in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study is especially important, because ankle arthritis treatment is very understudied, compared with hip and knee arthritis, but it has a similar impact on activity, editorial coauthor Dr. Sangeorzan said in an interview.

“Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for comparing medical therapies,” he said, “but they are very difficult to do in surgical treatments, particularly when the two treatments can be differentiated, in this case by movement of the ankle.”

In addition, there is a strong placebo effect attached to interventions, Dr. Sangeorzan noted. “Determining best-case treatment relies on prospective research, preferably randomized. Since both ankle fusion and ankle replacement are effective therapies, a prospective randomized trial is the best way to help make treatment decisions,” he said.

The current study findings are not surprising, but they are preliminary, and 1 year of follow-up is not enough to determine effectiveness, Dr. Sangeorzan emphasized. However, “the authors have done the hard work of randomizing the patients and collecting the data, and the patients can now be followed for a longer time,” he said.

“In addition, the trial was designed with multiple secondary outcome measures, so the data can be matched up with larger trials that were not randomized to identify key elements of success for each procedure,” he noted.

The key message for clinicians is that ankle arthritis has a significant impact on patients’ lives, but there are two effective treatments that can reduce the impact of the disease, said Dr. Sangeorzan. “The data suggest that there are differences in implant design and differences in comorbidities that should influence decision-making,” he added.

Additional research is needed in the form of a longer study duration with larger cohorts, said Dr. Sangeorzan. In particular, researchers need to determine what comorbidities might drive patients to one type of care vs. another, he said. “The suggestion that [patients receiving implants with two motion segments have better outcomes than those receiving implants with a one-motion segment] also deserves further study,” he added.

The research was supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. The trial was sponsored by University College London. Dr. Goldberg disclosed grant support from NIHR HTA, as well as financial relationships with companies including Stryker, Paragon 28, and stock options with Standing CT Company, Elstree Waterfront Outpatients, and X Bolt Orthopedics.

The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Getting COVID-19 a second time doubles a person’s chance of dying and triples the likelihood of being hospitalized in the next 6 months, a new study found.

Vaccination and booster status did not improve survival or hospitalization rates among people who were infected more than once.

“Reinfection with COVID-19 increases the risk of both acute outcomes and long COVID,” study author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, told Reuters. “This was evident in unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted people.”

The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

Researchers analyzed U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data, including 443,588 people with a first infection of SARS-CoV-2, 40,947 people who were infected two or more times, and 5.3 million people who had not been infected with coronavirus, whose data served as the control group.

“During the past few months, there’s been an air of invincibility among people who have had COVID-19 or their vaccinations and boosters, and especially among people who have had an infection and also received vaccines; some people started to [refer] to these individuals as having a sort of superimmunity to the virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said in a press release from Washington University in St. Louis. “Without ambiguity, our research showed that getting an infection a second, third or fourth time contributes to additional health risks in the acute phase, meaning the first 30 days after infection, and in the months beyond, meaning the long COVID phase.”

Being infected with COVID-19 more than once also dramatically increased the risk of developing lung problems, heart conditions, or brain conditions. The heightened risks persisted for 6 months.

Researchers said a limitation of their study was that data primarily came from White males.

An expert not involved in the study told Reuters that the Veterans Affairs population does not reflect the general population. Patients at VA health facilities are generally older with more than normal health complications, said John Moore, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Al-Aly encouraged people to be vigilant as they plan for the holiday season, Reuters reported.

“We had started seeing a lot of patients coming to the clinic with an air of invincibility,” he told Reuters. “They wondered, ‘Does getting a reinfection really matter?’ The answer is yes, it absolutely does.”

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

Getting COVID-19 a second time doubles a person’s chance of dying and triples the likelihood of being hospitalized in the next 6 months, a new study found.

Vaccination and booster status did not improve survival or hospitalization rates among people who were infected more than once.

“Reinfection with COVID-19 increases the risk of both acute outcomes and long COVID,” study author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, told Reuters. “This was evident in unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted people.”

The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

Researchers analyzed U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data, including 443,588 people with a first infection of SARS-CoV-2, 40,947 people who were infected two or more times, and 5.3 million people who had not been infected with coronavirus, whose data served as the control group.

“During the past few months, there’s been an air of invincibility among people who have had COVID-19 or their vaccinations and boosters, and especially among people who have had an infection and also received vaccines; some people started to [refer] to these individuals as having a sort of superimmunity to the virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said in a press release from Washington University in St. Louis. “Without ambiguity, our research showed that getting an infection a second, third or fourth time contributes to additional health risks in the acute phase, meaning the first 30 days after infection, and in the months beyond, meaning the long COVID phase.”

Being infected with COVID-19 more than once also dramatically increased the risk of developing lung problems, heart conditions, or brain conditions. The heightened risks persisted for 6 months.

Researchers said a limitation of their study was that data primarily came from White males.

An expert not involved in the study told Reuters that the Veterans Affairs population does not reflect the general population. Patients at VA health facilities are generally older with more than normal health complications, said John Moore, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Al-Aly encouraged people to be vigilant as they plan for the holiday season, Reuters reported.

“We had started seeing a lot of patients coming to the clinic with an air of invincibility,” he told Reuters. “They wondered, ‘Does getting a reinfection really matter?’ The answer is yes, it absolutely does.”

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

Getting COVID-19 a second time doubles a person’s chance of dying and triples the likelihood of being hospitalized in the next 6 months, a new study found.

Vaccination and booster status did not improve survival or hospitalization rates among people who were infected more than once.

“Reinfection with COVID-19 increases the risk of both acute outcomes and long COVID,” study author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, told Reuters. “This was evident in unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted people.”

The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

Researchers analyzed U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data, including 443,588 people with a first infection of SARS-CoV-2, 40,947 people who were infected two or more times, and 5.3 million people who had not been infected with coronavirus, whose data served as the control group.

“During the past few months, there’s been an air of invincibility among people who have had COVID-19 or their vaccinations and boosters, and especially among people who have had an infection and also received vaccines; some people started to [refer] to these individuals as having a sort of superimmunity to the virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said in a press release from Washington University in St. Louis. “Without ambiguity, our research showed that getting an infection a second, third or fourth time contributes to additional health risks in the acute phase, meaning the first 30 days after infection, and in the months beyond, meaning the long COVID phase.”

Being infected with COVID-19 more than once also dramatically increased the risk of developing lung problems, heart conditions, or brain conditions. The heightened risks persisted for 6 months.

Researchers said a limitation of their study was that data primarily came from White males.

An expert not involved in the study told Reuters that the Veterans Affairs population does not reflect the general population. Patients at VA health facilities are generally older with more than normal health complications, said John Moore, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Al-Aly encouraged people to be vigilant as they plan for the holiday season, Reuters reported.

“We had started seeing a lot of patients coming to the clinic with an air of invincibility,” he told Reuters. “They wondered, ‘Does getting a reinfection really matter?’ The answer is yes, it absolutely does.”

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

PHILADELPHIA – Oral remibrutinib was well tolerated and had a good safety profile over 24 weeks among patients with moderate to severe Sjögren syndrome (SS), according to new phase 2 data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Thomas Dörner, MD, with the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, presented the data from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study.

The authors said the results of the study suggest that remibrutinib, a highly specific inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase, has the potential to become the first effective oral disease-modifying therapy for SS.

The 73 participants in the study had moderate to severe SS. The baseline EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score was at least 5, EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) was at least 5, and anti-Ro/SSA antibody positivity was 3 months or less before screening. The patients’ unstimulated whole salivary flow rate was > 0 mL/min.

Overall, 73 patients (71 women) were randomly assigned to receive either remibrutinib 100 mg twice a day (n = 24), remibrutinib 100 mg four times a day (n = 25), or placebo (n = 24) between August 2019 and May 2021.

Remibrutinib met the primary endpoint and resulted in a statistically significant improvement in ESSDAI score for both regimens combined compared with placebo at week 24 (ESSDAI, –2.86).
 

Patient-reported outcomes similar to placebo

Patient-reported outcomes, including scores on ESSPRI, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue, and EuroQol-5 Dimension, were similar in the treatment groups and the placebo group.

“All of the patients, including the placebo patients, improved over the time of the study,” Dr. Dörner said.

The average age of the patients was 51.8 years (range, 18-75 years). Groups were generally balanced with regard to demographic qualities and disease severity at baseline, and the patients represented the SS population well, Dr. Dörner said.

No severe adverse events were reported. Infections were the most frequently reported adverse events, and the rates were similar with the study drug and placebo. No notable liver abnormalities were reported in any of the groups.

Chrisanna Dobrowolski, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, told this news organization, “Preliminary results are promising, but they failed to show improvements in patient-reported quality-of-life measures.

“Having statistical improvements in disease activity measures without clinically meaningful improvement in patient quality of life may limit the value of this treatment,” she said.

Dr. Dobrowolski added that the follow-up period of 6 months is short, and larger studies over a longer period are needed to better assess the effect on patients’ quality of life.

“Regardless, this is the first oral medication which has shown disease-modifying potential for the glandular symptoms of SS and is an exciting new avenue of investigation to be further explored,” she said.

Patients with SS 15 to 20 times more likely to develop B-cell lymphoma as a life-threatening complication. SS is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by B-cell hyperactivation, lymphoid infiltration, progressive destruction of exocrine glands, and various complications outside the glands, the study authors wrote in the abstract.
 

Nearly 4 million in U.S. live with the disease

Nearly 4 million people in the United States live with the disease. Common symptoms include light sensitivity, dry eye, dry mouth, fatigue, and joint pain.

SS can be difficult to diagnose because the symptoms vary from person to person and can be confused with those caused by other diseases.

Ardy Fenando, MD, a rheumatology fellow with the University of Kansas Medical Center, said in an interview, “We need more therapies for Sjögren’s. Heterogeneity complicates the way we set the primary endpoints. Therefore, we haven’t had a proven treatment for Sjögren’s. This is supported by previous RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that failed to meet the primary end points.”

Dr. Dörner has relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb), and UCB. Other authors have various relationships with industry. Dr. Fenando and Dr. Dobrowolski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Oral remibrutinib was well tolerated and had a good safety profile over 24 weeks among patients with moderate to severe Sjögren syndrome (SS), according to new phase 2 data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Thomas Dörner, MD, with the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, presented the data from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study.

The authors said the results of the study suggest that remibrutinib, a highly specific inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase, has the potential to become the first effective oral disease-modifying therapy for SS.

The 73 participants in the study had moderate to severe SS. The baseline EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score was at least 5, EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) was at least 5, and anti-Ro/SSA antibody positivity was 3 months or less before screening. The patients’ unstimulated whole salivary flow rate was > 0 mL/min.

Overall, 73 patients (71 women) were randomly assigned to receive either remibrutinib 100 mg twice a day (n = 24), remibrutinib 100 mg four times a day (n = 25), or placebo (n = 24) between August 2019 and May 2021.

Remibrutinib met the primary endpoint and resulted in a statistically significant improvement in ESSDAI score for both regimens combined compared with placebo at week 24 (ESSDAI, –2.86).
 

Patient-reported outcomes similar to placebo

Patient-reported outcomes, including scores on ESSPRI, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue, and EuroQol-5 Dimension, were similar in the treatment groups and the placebo group.

“All of the patients, including the placebo patients, improved over the time of the study,” Dr. Dörner said.

The average age of the patients was 51.8 years (range, 18-75 years). Groups were generally balanced with regard to demographic qualities and disease severity at baseline, and the patients represented the SS population well, Dr. Dörner said.

No severe adverse events were reported. Infections were the most frequently reported adverse events, and the rates were similar with the study drug and placebo. No notable liver abnormalities were reported in any of the groups.

Chrisanna Dobrowolski, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, told this news organization, “Preliminary results are promising, but they failed to show improvements in patient-reported quality-of-life measures.

“Having statistical improvements in disease activity measures without clinically meaningful improvement in patient quality of life may limit the value of this treatment,” she said.

Dr. Dobrowolski added that the follow-up period of 6 months is short, and larger studies over a longer period are needed to better assess the effect on patients’ quality of life.

“Regardless, this is the first oral medication which has shown disease-modifying potential for the glandular symptoms of SS and is an exciting new avenue of investigation to be further explored,” she said.

Patients with SS 15 to 20 times more likely to develop B-cell lymphoma as a life-threatening complication. SS is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by B-cell hyperactivation, lymphoid infiltration, progressive destruction of exocrine glands, and various complications outside the glands, the study authors wrote in the abstract.
 

Nearly 4 million in U.S. live with the disease

Nearly 4 million people in the United States live with the disease. Common symptoms include light sensitivity, dry eye, dry mouth, fatigue, and joint pain.

SS can be difficult to diagnose because the symptoms vary from person to person and can be confused with those caused by other diseases.

Ardy Fenando, MD, a rheumatology fellow with the University of Kansas Medical Center, said in an interview, “We need more therapies for Sjögren’s. Heterogeneity complicates the way we set the primary endpoints. Therefore, we haven’t had a proven treatment for Sjögren’s. This is supported by previous RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that failed to meet the primary end points.”

Dr. Dörner has relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb), and UCB. Other authors have various relationships with industry. Dr. Fenando and Dr. Dobrowolski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Oral remibrutinib was well tolerated and had a good safety profile over 24 weeks among patients with moderate to severe Sjögren syndrome (SS), according to new phase 2 data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Thomas Dörner, MD, with the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, presented the data from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study.

The authors said the results of the study suggest that remibrutinib, a highly specific inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase, has the potential to become the first effective oral disease-modifying therapy for SS.

The 73 participants in the study had moderate to severe SS. The baseline EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score was at least 5, EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) was at least 5, and anti-Ro/SSA antibody positivity was 3 months or less before screening. The patients’ unstimulated whole salivary flow rate was > 0 mL/min.

Overall, 73 patients (71 women) were randomly assigned to receive either remibrutinib 100 mg twice a day (n = 24), remibrutinib 100 mg four times a day (n = 25), or placebo (n = 24) between August 2019 and May 2021.

Remibrutinib met the primary endpoint and resulted in a statistically significant improvement in ESSDAI score for both regimens combined compared with placebo at week 24 (ESSDAI, –2.86).
 

Patient-reported outcomes similar to placebo

Patient-reported outcomes, including scores on ESSPRI, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue, and EuroQol-5 Dimension, were similar in the treatment groups and the placebo group.

“All of the patients, including the placebo patients, improved over the time of the study,” Dr. Dörner said.

The average age of the patients was 51.8 years (range, 18-75 years). Groups were generally balanced with regard to demographic qualities and disease severity at baseline, and the patients represented the SS population well, Dr. Dörner said.

No severe adverse events were reported. Infections were the most frequently reported adverse events, and the rates were similar with the study drug and placebo. No notable liver abnormalities were reported in any of the groups.

Chrisanna Dobrowolski, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, told this news organization, “Preliminary results are promising, but they failed to show improvements in patient-reported quality-of-life measures.

“Having statistical improvements in disease activity measures without clinically meaningful improvement in patient quality of life may limit the value of this treatment,” she said.

Dr. Dobrowolski added that the follow-up period of 6 months is short, and larger studies over a longer period are needed to better assess the effect on patients’ quality of life.

“Regardless, this is the first oral medication which has shown disease-modifying potential for the glandular symptoms of SS and is an exciting new avenue of investigation to be further explored,” she said.

Patients with SS 15 to 20 times more likely to develop B-cell lymphoma as a life-threatening complication. SS is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by B-cell hyperactivation, lymphoid infiltration, progressive destruction of exocrine glands, and various complications outside the glands, the study authors wrote in the abstract.
 

Nearly 4 million in U.S. live with the disease

Nearly 4 million people in the United States live with the disease. Common symptoms include light sensitivity, dry eye, dry mouth, fatigue, and joint pain.

SS can be difficult to diagnose because the symptoms vary from person to person and can be confused with those caused by other diseases.

Ardy Fenando, MD, a rheumatology fellow with the University of Kansas Medical Center, said in an interview, “We need more therapies for Sjögren’s. Heterogeneity complicates the way we set the primary endpoints. Therefore, we haven’t had a proven treatment for Sjögren’s. This is supported by previous RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that failed to meet the primary end points.”

Dr. Dörner has relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb), and UCB. Other authors have various relationships with industry. Dr. Fenando and Dr. Dobrowolski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHILADELPHIA – When patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were switched from one biosimilar agent to another, treatment retention rates were high, investigators in Denmark reported.

The findings suggest patient-related factors rather than drug-related factors appear to determine whether patients will stay on the new drug, the researchers said.

One year after a Danish government-mandated switch from one infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar to another equally efficacious but less costly biosimilar, 83% of patients who had started therapy on a biosimilar (so-called “originator-naive” patients) stayed on the newly assigned therapy. And so did 92% of patients who had started on the original infliximab (“originator experienced”) before they were switched to one biosimilar and then another.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“In regards to potential baseline predictors, we found that treatment withdrawal was more frequent among originator-naive switchers and patients with higher baseline disease activity, especially [in] patient-reported outcomes, which may indicate that treatment-related outcomes may be more affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors,” said lead author Hafsah Nabi, MD from the Danish biosimilar registry DANBIO and a PhD candidate at the Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research.

Dr. Nabi reported the results in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Annual review of biologic agents

In Denmark, health authorities issue annual recommendations for the use of biologic agents. “And since patients receive this treatment free from the hospital, based on the tax system, the switches are made due to these cost considerations,” Dr. Nabi said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

To get the nod from Danish pharmaceutical regulators, pharmaceutical manufacturers submit drugs that have already been approved by the European Medicines Agency for consideration for treatment of specific indications, explained coauthor Merete Lund Hetland, MD, PhD, DMSc, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

“Those drugs that are then considered equally safe and effective are invited to this process where they will give their bid, and then the cheapest one will win,” she said.

The winning formulation will be able to capture about 80% of prescriptions for that indication for the coming year.
 

Awake at the switch

Dr. Nabi, Dr. Hetland, and colleagues studied how one such recent government-mandated switch from one biosimilar to another affected efficacy and patterns of care among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

To identify prior comorbidities, they drew data from the DANBIO registry, which is linked to patient specific but anonymous data from other comprehensive birth-to-death patient registries in Denmark.

They looked at all patients with RA, PsA, or axSpA who were switched from CT-P13 (Remsira, Inflectra) to GP1111 (Zessly) from April 1, 2019, to Feb. 1, 2020.

They identified a total of 1,605 patients, including 685 with RA, 314 with PsA, and 606 with axSpa. The median disease duration was 9 years, and 37% of all patients were in remission according to Clinical Disease Activity Index or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scale.

Of this group, 1,171 had started therapy on a biosimilar.

As noted above, 83% of patients who had never received original infliximab, and 92% of those who were originator experienced were still on the new biosimilar 1 year after the switch.

In a multivariate analysis controlling for demographic and clinical factors at baseline, the variables significantly associated with treatment withdrawal from the new biosimilar (GP11110) included previous Remicade exposure (hazard ratio, 0.36), methotrexate use (HR, 0.60), and patient-reported global visual analog scale (HR, 1.02).

Among all patients, disease activity was stable 6 months before and after the switch, Dr. Nabi said, although she did not show data to support it.
 

Patient education benefit

During the session, Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of rheumatology and chair of the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, who was not involved the study, asked Dr. Nabi whether patients were educated about equivalent efficacy and safety of biosimilars prior to the switch. He noted that education prior to switching led to a much lower patient withdrawal rate in a similar switching study conducted in The Netherlands.

“In this study, we haven’t looked more specifically into the education and which strategies have been used prior to switching, and we also conclude in the study that there may be the presence of a nocebo effect, which can be handled by better educating the patients,” she replied.

The nocebo effect refers to the phenomenon in which a patient’s belief that a specific intervention may cause harm actually can lead to negative outcomes – in other words, the opposite of the placebo effect.

In an interview, Dr. Kay said that he is confident about the efficacy, safety, and equivalency of approved biosimilar agents.

“A biosimilar that has been reviewed and approved by a regulatory agency such as the [Food and Drug Administration or the [European Medicines Agency] should be equivalent in efficacy and comparable in safety and immunogenicity. I would be fully confident in switching from the reference product to the biosimilar,” he said.

Dr. Nabi reported that the study was partly funded by a research grant from Sandoz, the maker of GP1111. Dr. Hetland has disclosed grants from various companies, not including Sandoz. Dr. Kay disclosed consulting fees from various companies, not including Sandoz.

PHILADELPHIA – When patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were switched from one biosimilar agent to another, treatment retention rates were high, investigators in Denmark reported.

The findings suggest patient-related factors rather than drug-related factors appear to determine whether patients will stay on the new drug, the researchers said.

One year after a Danish government-mandated switch from one infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar to another equally efficacious but less costly biosimilar, 83% of patients who had started therapy on a biosimilar (so-called “originator-naive” patients) stayed on the newly assigned therapy. And so did 92% of patients who had started on the original infliximab (“originator experienced”) before they were switched to one biosimilar and then another.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“In regards to potential baseline predictors, we found that treatment withdrawal was more frequent among originator-naive switchers and patients with higher baseline disease activity, especially [in] patient-reported outcomes, which may indicate that treatment-related outcomes may be more affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors,” said lead author Hafsah Nabi, MD from the Danish biosimilar registry DANBIO and a PhD candidate at the Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research.

Dr. Nabi reported the results in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Annual review of biologic agents

In Denmark, health authorities issue annual recommendations for the use of biologic agents. “And since patients receive this treatment free from the hospital, based on the tax system, the switches are made due to these cost considerations,” Dr. Nabi said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

To get the nod from Danish pharmaceutical regulators, pharmaceutical manufacturers submit drugs that have already been approved by the European Medicines Agency for consideration for treatment of specific indications, explained coauthor Merete Lund Hetland, MD, PhD, DMSc, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

“Those drugs that are then considered equally safe and effective are invited to this process where they will give their bid, and then the cheapest one will win,” she said.

The winning formulation will be able to capture about 80% of prescriptions for that indication for the coming year.
 

Awake at the switch

Dr. Nabi, Dr. Hetland, and colleagues studied how one such recent government-mandated switch from one biosimilar to another affected efficacy and patterns of care among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

To identify prior comorbidities, they drew data from the DANBIO registry, which is linked to patient specific but anonymous data from other comprehensive birth-to-death patient registries in Denmark.

They looked at all patients with RA, PsA, or axSpA who were switched from CT-P13 (Remsira, Inflectra) to GP1111 (Zessly) from April 1, 2019, to Feb. 1, 2020.

They identified a total of 1,605 patients, including 685 with RA, 314 with PsA, and 606 with axSpa. The median disease duration was 9 years, and 37% of all patients were in remission according to Clinical Disease Activity Index or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scale.

Of this group, 1,171 had started therapy on a biosimilar.

As noted above, 83% of patients who had never received original infliximab, and 92% of those who were originator experienced were still on the new biosimilar 1 year after the switch.

In a multivariate analysis controlling for demographic and clinical factors at baseline, the variables significantly associated with treatment withdrawal from the new biosimilar (GP11110) included previous Remicade exposure (hazard ratio, 0.36), methotrexate use (HR, 0.60), and patient-reported global visual analog scale (HR, 1.02).

Among all patients, disease activity was stable 6 months before and after the switch, Dr. Nabi said, although she did not show data to support it.
 

Patient education benefit

During the session, Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of rheumatology and chair of the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, who was not involved the study, asked Dr. Nabi whether patients were educated about equivalent efficacy and safety of biosimilars prior to the switch. He noted that education prior to switching led to a much lower patient withdrawal rate in a similar switching study conducted in The Netherlands.

“In this study, we haven’t looked more specifically into the education and which strategies have been used prior to switching, and we also conclude in the study that there may be the presence of a nocebo effect, which can be handled by better educating the patients,” she replied.

The nocebo effect refers to the phenomenon in which a patient’s belief that a specific intervention may cause harm actually can lead to negative outcomes – in other words, the opposite of the placebo effect.

In an interview, Dr. Kay said that he is confident about the efficacy, safety, and equivalency of approved biosimilar agents.

“A biosimilar that has been reviewed and approved by a regulatory agency such as the [Food and Drug Administration or the [European Medicines Agency] should be equivalent in efficacy and comparable in safety and immunogenicity. I would be fully confident in switching from the reference product to the biosimilar,” he said.

Dr. Nabi reported that the study was partly funded by a research grant from Sandoz, the maker of GP1111. Dr. Hetland has disclosed grants from various companies, not including Sandoz. Dr. Kay disclosed consulting fees from various companies, not including Sandoz.

PHILADELPHIA – When patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were switched from one biosimilar agent to another, treatment retention rates were high, investigators in Denmark reported.

The findings suggest patient-related factors rather than drug-related factors appear to determine whether patients will stay on the new drug, the researchers said.

One year after a Danish government-mandated switch from one infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar to another equally efficacious but less costly biosimilar, 83% of patients who had started therapy on a biosimilar (so-called “originator-naive” patients) stayed on the newly assigned therapy. And so did 92% of patients who had started on the original infliximab (“originator experienced”) before they were switched to one biosimilar and then another.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“In regards to potential baseline predictors, we found that treatment withdrawal was more frequent among originator-naive switchers and patients with higher baseline disease activity, especially [in] patient-reported outcomes, which may indicate that treatment-related outcomes may be more affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors,” said lead author Hafsah Nabi, MD from the Danish biosimilar registry DANBIO and a PhD candidate at the Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research.

Dr. Nabi reported the results in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Annual review of biologic agents

In Denmark, health authorities issue annual recommendations for the use of biologic agents. “And since patients receive this treatment free from the hospital, based on the tax system, the switches are made due to these cost considerations,” Dr. Nabi said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

To get the nod from Danish pharmaceutical regulators, pharmaceutical manufacturers submit drugs that have already been approved by the European Medicines Agency for consideration for treatment of specific indications, explained coauthor Merete Lund Hetland, MD, PhD, DMSc, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

“Those drugs that are then considered equally safe and effective are invited to this process where they will give their bid, and then the cheapest one will win,” she said.

The winning formulation will be able to capture about 80% of prescriptions for that indication for the coming year.
 

Awake at the switch

Dr. Nabi, Dr. Hetland, and colleagues studied how one such recent government-mandated switch from one biosimilar to another affected efficacy and patterns of care among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

To identify prior comorbidities, they drew data from the DANBIO registry, which is linked to patient specific but anonymous data from other comprehensive birth-to-death patient registries in Denmark.

They looked at all patients with RA, PsA, or axSpA who were switched from CT-P13 (Remsira, Inflectra) to GP1111 (Zessly) from April 1, 2019, to Feb. 1, 2020.

They identified a total of 1,605 patients, including 685 with RA, 314 with PsA, and 606 with axSpa. The median disease duration was 9 years, and 37% of all patients were in remission according to Clinical Disease Activity Index or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scale.

Of this group, 1,171 had started therapy on a biosimilar.

As noted above, 83% of patients who had never received original infliximab, and 92% of those who were originator experienced were still on the new biosimilar 1 year after the switch.

In a multivariate analysis controlling for demographic and clinical factors at baseline, the variables significantly associated with treatment withdrawal from the new biosimilar (GP11110) included previous Remicade exposure (hazard ratio, 0.36), methotrexate use (HR, 0.60), and patient-reported global visual analog scale (HR, 1.02).

Among all patients, disease activity was stable 6 months before and after the switch, Dr. Nabi said, although she did not show data to support it.
 

Patient education benefit

During the session, Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of rheumatology and chair of the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, who was not involved the study, asked Dr. Nabi whether patients were educated about equivalent efficacy and safety of biosimilars prior to the switch. He noted that education prior to switching led to a much lower patient withdrawal rate in a similar switching study conducted in The Netherlands.

“In this study, we haven’t looked more specifically into the education and which strategies have been used prior to switching, and we also conclude in the study that there may be the presence of a nocebo effect, which can be handled by better educating the patients,” she replied.

The nocebo effect refers to the phenomenon in which a patient’s belief that a specific intervention may cause harm actually can lead to negative outcomes – in other words, the opposite of the placebo effect.

In an interview, Dr. Kay said that he is confident about the efficacy, safety, and equivalency of approved biosimilar agents.

“A biosimilar that has been reviewed and approved by a regulatory agency such as the [Food and Drug Administration or the [European Medicines Agency] should be equivalent in efficacy and comparable in safety and immunogenicity. I would be fully confident in switching from the reference product to the biosimilar,” he said.

Dr. Nabi reported that the study was partly funded by a research grant from Sandoz, the maker of GP1111. Dr. Hetland has disclosed grants from various companies, not including Sandoz. Dr. Kay disclosed consulting fees from various companies, not including Sandoz.

As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!

Insurance

Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.

Legislation and regulation

Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.

At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.

Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.

With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.

As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.

Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.

The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.

Turning frustration into action

Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.

It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.

As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.

CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.

Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!

Insurance

Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.

Legislation and regulation

Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.

At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.

Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.

With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.

As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.

Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.

The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.

Turning frustration into action

Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.

It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.

As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.

CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.

Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!

Insurance

Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.

Legislation and regulation

Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.

At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.

Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.

With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.

As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.

Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.

The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.

Turning frustration into action

Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.

It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.

As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.

CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.

Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.

“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
 

Double-blind, double-dummy

RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.

The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m² of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.

“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
 

Improved lung function

While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.

“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.

But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).

“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”

Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.

“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”

The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.

Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.

Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”

Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.






 

PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.

“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
 

Double-blind, double-dummy

RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.

The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m² of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.

“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
 

Improved lung function

While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.

“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.

But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).

“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”

Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.

“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”

The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.

Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.

Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”

Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.






 

PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.

“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
 

Double-blind, double-dummy

RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.

The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m² of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.

“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
 

Improved lung function

While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.

“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.

But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).

“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”

Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.

“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”

The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.

Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.

Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”

Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.






 

Researchers have found a link between age of diagnosis and various clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).

The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, may have implications for research and treatment, especially in children.

AAV is a group of conditions characterized by the development of autoantibodies to the neutrophil proteins proteinase 3 (PR3-ANCA) or myeloperoxidase (MPO-ANCA).

The rare autoimmune condition can cause systemic inflammation and damage, sometimes permanent, to small- and medium-sized arteries. Clinical presentations vary and can include several organs, including skin, stomach, intestines, lung, and kidney, as well as airways in ear, nose, and throat.
 

Data limited on child vs. adult characteristics

AAV can be diagnosed in any decade of life, but clinical characteristics and outcomes often differ between children and adults, and data are limited. Studies often exclude children.

Lead author Jessica Bloom, MD, MSCS, a pediatric rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues performed an analysis of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) who were enrolled in the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium Longitudinal Studies from 2013 to 2021.

Patients with eosinophilic GPA (EGPA) were analyzed separately. Children and young adults with EGPA were combined because of the small sample size (n = 87).

The groups were sorted by the age they were diagnosed: under 18 years old, 18-40, 40-65, and older than 65.
 

More than 1,000 patients included

Dr. Bloom’s team analyzed data from 1,020 patients: 61 diagnosed as children, 240 as young adults, 560 as middle-aged adults, and 159 diagnosed as older adults. At all ages, about nine out of 10 patients were White.

They found 852 (84%) had GPA and 165 (16%) had MPA. The analysis also showed 893 (92%) of patients with ANCA results were ANCA positive: 637 (65%) with PR3-ANCA, 247 (25%) with MPO-ANCA, and 9 (1%) with both.

Differences between age groups included:

• Children experienced more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults with the condition.
• About half of patients diagnosed in childhood received both cyclophosphamide and rituximab. That rate decreased with increasing age of diagnosis to as low as 14% for those diagnosed in older adulthood. 
• More females than males in all age groups were diagnosed with AAV, but the difference was most pronounced when diagnosed in childhood, and female predominance declined as age increased.
• Older adults experienced more neurologic disease and less musculoskeletal and sinus involvement.

Additionally, for those diagnosed after age 65, after adjusting for disease length and whether they were taking cyclophosphamide and/or rituximab, the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) and ANCA Vasculitis Index of Damage (AVID) scores were higher than for those diagnosed in childhood.

“However, these differences are no longer significant when medication toxicity and comorbidity-related items are excluded. Thus, differences in the VDI and AVID scores are driven by non–disease-specific damage,” Dr. Bloom said.
 

Bringing children into the clinical discussion

Dr. Bloom said in an interview that many pediatric rheumatologists believe kids with vasculitis are like small adults and should be treated similarly, but she said the picture may be more complex than that.

For example, the findings that children have more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults “may warrant more aggressive therapy,” she said. Children also have different growth and psychosocial risk factors during their disease course and may live longer with the disease than those in older age groups.

“Our study helps to point out these differences and bring children into the discussion,” Dr. Bloom said. “It also recognizes that damage scores used in studies and care may not adequately assess disease across the lifespan, as they are largely influenced by items not specific to the disease but rather medication toxicity and comorbidities, such as osteoporosis, cataracts, and malignancy.”

Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview that the work highlights interesting information about the fact that disease features are skewed differently in children – “in particular the higher likelihood of upper airway [subglottic] disease, and potentially severe lower airway disease [alveolar hemorrhage].”

However, from a practical standpoint, Dr. Spiera said, “I am not sure that this will change our clinical approach to different patients, but the differences in disease features and even the sex differences in terms of who are afflicted with GPA [more often children and more likely to be female] may offer insights into disease pathogenesis.”

Dr. Bloom received funding from the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium and Vasculitis Foundation to conduct this work as a VCRC-VF fellow. Several coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have found a link between age of diagnosis and various clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).

The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, may have implications for research and treatment, especially in children.

AAV is a group of conditions characterized by the development of autoantibodies to the neutrophil proteins proteinase 3 (PR3-ANCA) or myeloperoxidase (MPO-ANCA).

The rare autoimmune condition can cause systemic inflammation and damage, sometimes permanent, to small- and medium-sized arteries. Clinical presentations vary and can include several organs, including skin, stomach, intestines, lung, and kidney, as well as airways in ear, nose, and throat.
 

Data limited on child vs. adult characteristics

AAV can be diagnosed in any decade of life, but clinical characteristics and outcomes often differ between children and adults, and data are limited. Studies often exclude children.

Lead author Jessica Bloom, MD, MSCS, a pediatric rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues performed an analysis of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) who were enrolled in the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium Longitudinal Studies from 2013 to 2021.

Patients with eosinophilic GPA (EGPA) were analyzed separately. Children and young adults with EGPA were combined because of the small sample size (n = 87).

The groups were sorted by the age they were diagnosed: under 18 years old, 18-40, 40-65, and older than 65.
 

More than 1,000 patients included

Dr. Bloom’s team analyzed data from 1,020 patients: 61 diagnosed as children, 240 as young adults, 560 as middle-aged adults, and 159 diagnosed as older adults. At all ages, about nine out of 10 patients were White.

They found 852 (84%) had GPA and 165 (16%) had MPA. The analysis also showed 893 (92%) of patients with ANCA results were ANCA positive: 637 (65%) with PR3-ANCA, 247 (25%) with MPO-ANCA, and 9 (1%) with both.

Differences between age groups included:

• Children experienced more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults with the condition.
• About half of patients diagnosed in childhood received both cyclophosphamide and rituximab. That rate decreased with increasing age of diagnosis to as low as 14% for those diagnosed in older adulthood. 
• More females than males in all age groups were diagnosed with AAV, but the difference was most pronounced when diagnosed in childhood, and female predominance declined as age increased.
• Older adults experienced more neurologic disease and less musculoskeletal and sinus involvement.

Additionally, for those diagnosed after age 65, after adjusting for disease length and whether they were taking cyclophosphamide and/or rituximab, the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) and ANCA Vasculitis Index of Damage (AVID) scores were higher than for those diagnosed in childhood.

“However, these differences are no longer significant when medication toxicity and comorbidity-related items are excluded. Thus, differences in the VDI and AVID scores are driven by non–disease-specific damage,” Dr. Bloom said.
 

Bringing children into the clinical discussion

Dr. Bloom said in an interview that many pediatric rheumatologists believe kids with vasculitis are like small adults and should be treated similarly, but she said the picture may be more complex than that.

For example, the findings that children have more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults “may warrant more aggressive therapy,” she said. Children also have different growth and psychosocial risk factors during their disease course and may live longer with the disease than those in older age groups.

“Our study helps to point out these differences and bring children into the discussion,” Dr. Bloom said. “It also recognizes that damage scores used in studies and care may not adequately assess disease across the lifespan, as they are largely influenced by items not specific to the disease but rather medication toxicity and comorbidities, such as osteoporosis, cataracts, and malignancy.”

Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview that the work highlights interesting information about the fact that disease features are skewed differently in children – “in particular the higher likelihood of upper airway [subglottic] disease, and potentially severe lower airway disease [alveolar hemorrhage].”

However, from a practical standpoint, Dr. Spiera said, “I am not sure that this will change our clinical approach to different patients, but the differences in disease features and even the sex differences in terms of who are afflicted with GPA [more often children and more likely to be female] may offer insights into disease pathogenesis.”

Dr. Bloom received funding from the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium and Vasculitis Foundation to conduct this work as a VCRC-VF fellow. Several coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have found a link between age of diagnosis and various clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).

The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, may have implications for research and treatment, especially in children.

AAV is a group of conditions characterized by the development of autoantibodies to the neutrophil proteins proteinase 3 (PR3-ANCA) or myeloperoxidase (MPO-ANCA).

The rare autoimmune condition can cause systemic inflammation and damage, sometimes permanent, to small- and medium-sized arteries. Clinical presentations vary and can include several organs, including skin, stomach, intestines, lung, and kidney, as well as airways in ear, nose, and throat.
 

Data limited on child vs. adult characteristics

AAV can be diagnosed in any decade of life, but clinical characteristics and outcomes often differ between children and adults, and data are limited. Studies often exclude children.

Lead author Jessica Bloom, MD, MSCS, a pediatric rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues performed an analysis of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) who were enrolled in the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium Longitudinal Studies from 2013 to 2021.

Patients with eosinophilic GPA (EGPA) were analyzed separately. Children and young adults with EGPA were combined because of the small sample size (n = 87).

The groups were sorted by the age they were diagnosed: under 18 years old, 18-40, 40-65, and older than 65.
 

More than 1,000 patients included

Dr. Bloom’s team analyzed data from 1,020 patients: 61 diagnosed as children, 240 as young adults, 560 as middle-aged adults, and 159 diagnosed as older adults. At all ages, about nine out of 10 patients were White.

They found 852 (84%) had GPA and 165 (16%) had MPA. The analysis also showed 893 (92%) of patients with ANCA results were ANCA positive: 637 (65%) with PR3-ANCA, 247 (25%) with MPO-ANCA, and 9 (1%) with both.

Differences between age groups included:

• Children experienced more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults with the condition.
• About half of patients diagnosed in childhood received both cyclophosphamide and rituximab. That rate decreased with increasing age of diagnosis to as low as 14% for those diagnosed in older adulthood. 
• More females than males in all age groups were diagnosed with AAV, but the difference was most pronounced when diagnosed in childhood, and female predominance declined as age increased.
• Older adults experienced more neurologic disease and less musculoskeletal and sinus involvement.

Additionally, for those diagnosed after age 65, after adjusting for disease length and whether they were taking cyclophosphamide and/or rituximab, the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) and ANCA Vasculitis Index of Damage (AVID) scores were higher than for those diagnosed in childhood.

“However, these differences are no longer significant when medication toxicity and comorbidity-related items are excluded. Thus, differences in the VDI and AVID scores are driven by non–disease-specific damage,” Dr. Bloom said.
 

Bringing children into the clinical discussion

Dr. Bloom said in an interview that many pediatric rheumatologists believe kids with vasculitis are like small adults and should be treated similarly, but she said the picture may be more complex than that.

For example, the findings that children have more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults “may warrant more aggressive therapy,” she said. Children also have different growth and psychosocial risk factors during their disease course and may live longer with the disease than those in older age groups.

“Our study helps to point out these differences and bring children into the discussion,” Dr. Bloom said. “It also recognizes that damage scores used in studies and care may not adequately assess disease across the lifespan, as they are largely influenced by items not specific to the disease but rather medication toxicity and comorbidities, such as osteoporosis, cataracts, and malignancy.”

Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview that the work highlights interesting information about the fact that disease features are skewed differently in children – “in particular the higher likelihood of upper airway [subglottic] disease, and potentially severe lower airway disease [alveolar hemorrhage].”

However, from a practical standpoint, Dr. Spiera said, “I am not sure that this will change our clinical approach to different patients, but the differences in disease features and even the sex differences in terms of who are afflicted with GPA [more often children and more likely to be female] may offer insights into disease pathogenesis.”

Dr. Bloom received funding from the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium and Vasculitis Foundation to conduct this work as a VCRC-VF fellow. Several coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera declared no relevant financial relationships.

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