MDedge Rheumatology

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The field of “reproductive rheumatology” has received growing attention in recent years as we learn more about how autoimmune rheumatic diseases and their treatment affect women of reproductive age. In 2020, the American College of Rheumatology published a comprehensive guideline that includes recommendations and supporting evidence for managing issues related to reproductive health in patients with rheumatic diseases and has since launched an ongoing Reproductive Health Initiative, with the goal of translating established guidelines into practice through various education and awareness campaigns. One area addressed by the guideline that comes up commonly in practice but receives less attention and research is the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in patients with rheumatic diseases.

Literature is conflicting regarding whether patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases are inherently at increased risk for infertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected intercourse, or subfertility, defined as a delay in conception. Regardless, several factors indirectly contribute to a disproportionate risk for infertility or subfertility in this patient population, including active inflammatory disease, reduced ovarian reserve, and medications.

Patients with subfertility or infertility who desire pregnancy may pursue ovulation induction with timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with either embryo transfer, or gestational surrogacy. Those who require treatment with cyclophosphamide or who plan to defer pregnancy for whatever reason can opt for oocyte cryopreservation (colloquially known as “egg freezing”). For IVF and oocyte cryopreservation, controlled ovarian stimulation is typically the first step (except in unstimulated, or “natural cycle,” IVF).

Various protocols are used for ovarian stimulation and ovulation induction, the nuances of which are beyond the scope of this article. In general, ovarian stimulation involves gonadotropin therapy (follicle-stimulating hormone and/or human menopausal gonadotropin) administered via scheduled subcutaneous injections to stimulate follicular growth, as well as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists to suppress luteinizing hormone, preventing ovulation. Adjunctive oral therapy (clomiphene citrate or letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor) may be used as well. The patient has frequent lab monitoring of hormone levels and transvaginal ultrasounds to measure follicle number and size and, when the timing is right, receives an “ovulation trigger” – either human chorionic gonadotropin or GnRH agonist, depending on the protocol. At this point, transvaginal ultrasound–guided egg retrieval is done under sedation. Recovered oocytes are then either frozen for later use or fertilized in the lab for embryo transfer. Lastly, exogenous hormones are often used: estrogen to support frozen embryo transfers and progesterone for so-called luteal phase support.

ART is not contraindicated in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, but there may be additional factors to consider, particularly for those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) without clinical APS.

Ovarian stimulation elevates estrogen levels to varying degrees depending on the patient and the medications used. In all cases, though, peak levels are significantly lower than levels reached during pregnancy. It is well established that elevated estrogen – whether from hormone therapies or pregnancy – significantly increases thrombotic risk, even in healthy people. High-risk patients should receive low-molecular-weight heparin – a prophylactic dose for patients with either positive aPL without clinical APS (including those with SLE) or with obstetric APS, and a therapeutic dose for those with thrombotic APS – during ART procedures.

In patients with SLE, another concern is that increased estrogen will cause disease flare. One case series published in 2017 reported 37 patients with SLE and/or APS who underwent 97 IVF cycles, of which 8% were complicated by flare or thrombotic events. Notably, half of these complications occurred in patients who stopped prescribed therapies (immunomodulatory therapy in two patients with SLE, anticoagulation in two patients with APS) after failure to conceive. In a separate study from 2000 including 19 patients with SLE, APS, or high-titer aPL who underwent 68 IVF cycles, 19% of cycles in patients with SLE were complicated by flare, and no thrombotic events occurred in the cohort. The authors concluded that ovulation induction does not exacerbate SLE or APS. In these studies, the overall pregnancy rates were felt to be consistent with those achieved by the general population through IVF. Although obstetric complications, such as preeclampsia and preterm delivery, were reported in about half of the pregnancies described, these are known to occur more frequently in those with SLE and APS, especially when active disease or other risk factors are present. There are no large-scale, controlled studies evaluating ART outcomes in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases to date.

Finally, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an increasingly rare but severe complication of ovarian stimulation. OHSS is characterized by capillary leak, fluid overload, and cytokine release syndrome and can lead to thromboembolic events. Comorbidities like hypertension and renal failure, which can go along with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, are risk factors for OHSS. The use of human chorionic gonadotropin to trigger ovulation is also associated with an increased risk for OHSS, so a GnRH agonist trigger may be preferable.

The ACR guideline recommends that individuals with any of these underlying conditions undergo ART only in expert centers. The ovarian stimulation protocol needs to be tailored to the individual patient to minimize risk and optimize outcomes. The overall goal when managing patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during ART is to establish and maintain disease control with pregnancy-compatible medications (when pregnancy is the goal). With adequate planning, appropriate treatment, and collaboration between obstetricians and rheumatologists, individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases can safely pursue ART and go on to have successful pregnancies.

Dr. Siegel is a 2022-2023 UCB Women’s Health rheumatology fellow in the rheumatology reproductive health program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at Hospital for Special Surgery/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Her clinical and research focus is on reproductive health issues in individuals with rheumatic disease. Dr. Chan is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for a monthly rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice. Follow Dr Chan on Twitter. Dr. Siegel and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article – an editorial collaboration between Medscape and the Hospital for Special Surgery – first appeared on Medscape.com.

The field of “reproductive rheumatology” has received growing attention in recent years as we learn more about how autoimmune rheumatic diseases and their treatment affect women of reproductive age. In 2020, the American College of Rheumatology published a comprehensive guideline that includes recommendations and supporting evidence for managing issues related to reproductive health in patients with rheumatic diseases and has since launched an ongoing Reproductive Health Initiative, with the goal of translating established guidelines into practice through various education and awareness campaigns. One area addressed by the guideline that comes up commonly in practice but receives less attention and research is the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in patients with rheumatic diseases.

Literature is conflicting regarding whether patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases are inherently at increased risk for infertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected intercourse, or subfertility, defined as a delay in conception. Regardless, several factors indirectly contribute to a disproportionate risk for infertility or subfertility in this patient population, including active inflammatory disease, reduced ovarian reserve, and medications.

Patients with subfertility or infertility who desire pregnancy may pursue ovulation induction with timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with either embryo transfer, or gestational surrogacy. Those who require treatment with cyclophosphamide or who plan to defer pregnancy for whatever reason can opt for oocyte cryopreservation (colloquially known as “egg freezing”). For IVF and oocyte cryopreservation, controlled ovarian stimulation is typically the first step (except in unstimulated, or “natural cycle,” IVF).

Various protocols are used for ovarian stimulation and ovulation induction, the nuances of which are beyond the scope of this article. In general, ovarian stimulation involves gonadotropin therapy (follicle-stimulating hormone and/or human menopausal gonadotropin) administered via scheduled subcutaneous injections to stimulate follicular growth, as well as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists to suppress luteinizing hormone, preventing ovulation. Adjunctive oral therapy (clomiphene citrate or letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor) may be used as well. The patient has frequent lab monitoring of hormone levels and transvaginal ultrasounds to measure follicle number and size and, when the timing is right, receives an “ovulation trigger” – either human chorionic gonadotropin or GnRH agonist, depending on the protocol. At this point, transvaginal ultrasound–guided egg retrieval is done under sedation. Recovered oocytes are then either frozen for later use or fertilized in the lab for embryo transfer. Lastly, exogenous hormones are often used: estrogen to support frozen embryo transfers and progesterone for so-called luteal phase support.

ART is not contraindicated in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, but there may be additional factors to consider, particularly for those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) without clinical APS.

Ovarian stimulation elevates estrogen levels to varying degrees depending on the patient and the medications used. In all cases, though, peak levels are significantly lower than levels reached during pregnancy. It is well established that elevated estrogen – whether from hormone therapies or pregnancy – significantly increases thrombotic risk, even in healthy people. High-risk patients should receive low-molecular-weight heparin – a prophylactic dose for patients with either positive aPL without clinical APS (including those with SLE) or with obstetric APS, and a therapeutic dose for those with thrombotic APS – during ART procedures.

In patients with SLE, another concern is that increased estrogen will cause disease flare. One case series published in 2017 reported 37 patients with SLE and/or APS who underwent 97 IVF cycles, of which 8% were complicated by flare or thrombotic events. Notably, half of these complications occurred in patients who stopped prescribed therapies (immunomodulatory therapy in two patients with SLE, anticoagulation in two patients with APS) after failure to conceive. In a separate study from 2000 including 19 patients with SLE, APS, or high-titer aPL who underwent 68 IVF cycles, 19% of cycles in patients with SLE were complicated by flare, and no thrombotic events occurred in the cohort. The authors concluded that ovulation induction does not exacerbate SLE or APS. In these studies, the overall pregnancy rates were felt to be consistent with those achieved by the general population through IVF. Although obstetric complications, such as preeclampsia and preterm delivery, were reported in about half of the pregnancies described, these are known to occur more frequently in those with SLE and APS, especially when active disease or other risk factors are present. There are no large-scale, controlled studies evaluating ART outcomes in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases to date.

Finally, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an increasingly rare but severe complication of ovarian stimulation. OHSS is characterized by capillary leak, fluid overload, and cytokine release syndrome and can lead to thromboembolic events. Comorbidities like hypertension and renal failure, which can go along with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, are risk factors for OHSS. The use of human chorionic gonadotropin to trigger ovulation is also associated with an increased risk for OHSS, so a GnRH agonist trigger may be preferable.

The ACR guideline recommends that individuals with any of these underlying conditions undergo ART only in expert centers. The ovarian stimulation protocol needs to be tailored to the individual patient to minimize risk and optimize outcomes. The overall goal when managing patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during ART is to establish and maintain disease control with pregnancy-compatible medications (when pregnancy is the goal). With adequate planning, appropriate treatment, and collaboration between obstetricians and rheumatologists, individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases can safely pursue ART and go on to have successful pregnancies.

Dr. Siegel is a 2022-2023 UCB Women’s Health rheumatology fellow in the rheumatology reproductive health program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at Hospital for Special Surgery/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Her clinical and research focus is on reproductive health issues in individuals with rheumatic disease. Dr. Chan is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for a monthly rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice. Follow Dr Chan on Twitter. Dr. Siegel and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article – an editorial collaboration between Medscape and the Hospital for Special Surgery – first appeared on Medscape.com.

The field of “reproductive rheumatology” has received growing attention in recent years as we learn more about how autoimmune rheumatic diseases and their treatment affect women of reproductive age. In 2020, the American College of Rheumatology published a comprehensive guideline that includes recommendations and supporting evidence for managing issues related to reproductive health in patients with rheumatic diseases and has since launched an ongoing Reproductive Health Initiative, with the goal of translating established guidelines into practice through various education and awareness campaigns. One area addressed by the guideline that comes up commonly in practice but receives less attention and research is the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in patients with rheumatic diseases.

Literature is conflicting regarding whether patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases are inherently at increased risk for infertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected intercourse, or subfertility, defined as a delay in conception. Regardless, several factors indirectly contribute to a disproportionate risk for infertility or subfertility in this patient population, including active inflammatory disease, reduced ovarian reserve, and medications.

Patients with subfertility or infertility who desire pregnancy may pursue ovulation induction with timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with either embryo transfer, or gestational surrogacy. Those who require treatment with cyclophosphamide or who plan to defer pregnancy for whatever reason can opt for oocyte cryopreservation (colloquially known as “egg freezing”). For IVF and oocyte cryopreservation, controlled ovarian stimulation is typically the first step (except in unstimulated, or “natural cycle,” IVF).

Various protocols are used for ovarian stimulation and ovulation induction, the nuances of which are beyond the scope of this article. In general, ovarian stimulation involves gonadotropin therapy (follicle-stimulating hormone and/or human menopausal gonadotropin) administered via scheduled subcutaneous injections to stimulate follicular growth, as well as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists to suppress luteinizing hormone, preventing ovulation. Adjunctive oral therapy (clomiphene citrate or letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor) may be used as well. The patient has frequent lab monitoring of hormone levels and transvaginal ultrasounds to measure follicle number and size and, when the timing is right, receives an “ovulation trigger” – either human chorionic gonadotropin or GnRH agonist, depending on the protocol. At this point, transvaginal ultrasound–guided egg retrieval is done under sedation. Recovered oocytes are then either frozen for later use or fertilized in the lab for embryo transfer. Lastly, exogenous hormones are often used: estrogen to support frozen embryo transfers and progesterone for so-called luteal phase support.

ART is not contraindicated in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, but there may be additional factors to consider, particularly for those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) without clinical APS.

Ovarian stimulation elevates estrogen levels to varying degrees depending on the patient and the medications used. In all cases, though, peak levels are significantly lower than levels reached during pregnancy. It is well established that elevated estrogen – whether from hormone therapies or pregnancy – significantly increases thrombotic risk, even in healthy people. High-risk patients should receive low-molecular-weight heparin – a prophylactic dose for patients with either positive aPL without clinical APS (including those with SLE) or with obstetric APS, and a therapeutic dose for those with thrombotic APS – during ART procedures.

In patients with SLE, another concern is that increased estrogen will cause disease flare. One case series published in 2017 reported 37 patients with SLE and/or APS who underwent 97 IVF cycles, of which 8% were complicated by flare or thrombotic events. Notably, half of these complications occurred in patients who stopped prescribed therapies (immunomodulatory therapy in two patients with SLE, anticoagulation in two patients with APS) after failure to conceive. In a separate study from 2000 including 19 patients with SLE, APS, or high-titer aPL who underwent 68 IVF cycles, 19% of cycles in patients with SLE were complicated by flare, and no thrombotic events occurred in the cohort. The authors concluded that ovulation induction does not exacerbate SLE or APS. In these studies, the overall pregnancy rates were felt to be consistent with those achieved by the general population through IVF. Although obstetric complications, such as preeclampsia and preterm delivery, were reported in about half of the pregnancies described, these are known to occur more frequently in those with SLE and APS, especially when active disease or other risk factors are present. There are no large-scale, controlled studies evaluating ART outcomes in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases to date.

Finally, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an increasingly rare but severe complication of ovarian stimulation. OHSS is characterized by capillary leak, fluid overload, and cytokine release syndrome and can lead to thromboembolic events. Comorbidities like hypertension and renal failure, which can go along with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, are risk factors for OHSS. The use of human chorionic gonadotropin to trigger ovulation is also associated with an increased risk for OHSS, so a GnRH agonist trigger may be preferable.

The ACR guideline recommends that individuals with any of these underlying conditions undergo ART only in expert centers. The ovarian stimulation protocol needs to be tailored to the individual patient to minimize risk and optimize outcomes. The overall goal when managing patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during ART is to establish and maintain disease control with pregnancy-compatible medications (when pregnancy is the goal). With adequate planning, appropriate treatment, and collaboration between obstetricians and rheumatologists, individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases can safely pursue ART and go on to have successful pregnancies.

Dr. Siegel is a 2022-2023 UCB Women’s Health rheumatology fellow in the rheumatology reproductive health program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at Hospital for Special Surgery/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Her clinical and research focus is on reproductive health issues in individuals with rheumatic disease. Dr. Chan is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for a monthly rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice. Follow Dr Chan on Twitter. Dr. Siegel and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article – an editorial collaboration between Medscape and the Hospital for Special Surgery – first appeared on Medscape.com.

For devout Muslims, praying multiple times a day is a lifelong observance and a core aspect of their faith. But osteoarthritis of the knee (KOA) can make kneeling and prostration challenging. To address this problem in an aging U.S. Muslim population, a multicenter team developed literature-based guidelines published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In an interview, corresponding author Mahfujul Z. Haque, a medical student at Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, discussed the guide, which he assembled with Marina N. Magrey, MD, the Ronald Moskowitz Professor of Rheumatology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and orthopedic surgeon Karl C. Roberts, MD, president of West Michigan Orthopaedics in Grand Rapids, among others.

Could you detail the clinical and cultural context for these recommendations?

Mr. Haque: Muslims currently make up 1.1% of the U.S. population, or 3.45 million people. This guidance provides advice to Muslim patients with KOA in a culturally sensitive manner that can supplement standard care. Prayer, or Salah, is a religious obligation typically performed in 17-48 daily repetitions of squatting, floor sitting, full-knee flexion, and kneeling. For patients with KOA, prayer can be painful, and a few studies have found a link between these repeated movements and KOA progression.

Carlina Teteris/Moment/Getty Images

Yet recommending stopping or limiting prayer is insensitive, so our group did a thorough literature search to identify easily implemented and culturally appropriate ways to ease praying.

Is there a traditional preference for praying on a hard surface?

Mr. Haque: Prayer can be performed on any surface that is clean and free from impurities. Cushioned and carpeted surfaces are permissible if the surface is somewhat firm and supportive for when worshippers prostrate themselves and put their faces on the ground. For example, compacted snow that wouldn’t allow the face to sink into it is permissible, but snow that is soft and would allow the face to sink in is not.

Have an increasing number of older patients raised the issue of knee pain during prayers?

Mr. Haque: We found no research on this in the literature. Anecdotally, however, two of our authors lead prayer in large Muslim communities in Detroit, and people often share with them that they feel discomfort during prayer and ask if there is anything they can do to limit this.

It is important to dispel the common myth that after total knee replacement one cannot kneel. About 20% of patients have some anterior knee discomfort after total knee arthroplasty, which can be exacerbated by kneeling, but kneeling causes no harm and can be done safely.

Could you outline the main recommendations?

Mr. Haque: These fall under three main categories: prayer surface, mechanics, and lifestyle modifications. The surface recommendations essentially advise using prayer rugs that provide cushioning or using cushioned kneepads.

The mechanics recommendations involve bracing with the palms down, standing up using the hands and knees, and guiding prayer motions with the hands. Chairs may be used as well.

Lifestyle recommendations outline home-exercise programs tailored to KOA and suggest the use of ice and compression during acute exacerbations.

Could these recommendations benefit other arthritic joints such as the wrists?

Mr. Haque: Anecdotally, our authors do not hear about pain in joints except for the knee and spine. To a limited extent, some of these recommendations may help patients with spinal arthritis as well.

What do you see as the greatest obstacle to implementation?

Mr. Haque: These recommendations, although permissible in the Muslim faith, are not part of traditional ritual and thus patients may simply forget to implement them. We advise physicians to ask patients which recommendations they are most likely to follow and to monitor how these have worked for them.

What is your best overall advice for broaching this issue with patients?

Mr. Haque: Holistic, functional, and culturally sensitive recommendations will be highly appreciated. Physicians are therefore encouraged to share this guidance with Muslim patients while using terms such as Salah, pronounced saa-laah, and Sajdah, pronounced sajduh and meaning prostration, and engage in a healthy dialogue.

These guidelines received no funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests relevant to their recommendations, but Dr. Magrey reported consulting and research relationships with private-sector companies outside of this work.

For devout Muslims, praying multiple times a day is a lifelong observance and a core aspect of their faith. But osteoarthritis of the knee (KOA) can make kneeling and prostration challenging. To address this problem in an aging U.S. Muslim population, a multicenter team developed literature-based guidelines published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In an interview, corresponding author Mahfujul Z. Haque, a medical student at Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, discussed the guide, which he assembled with Marina N. Magrey, MD, the Ronald Moskowitz Professor of Rheumatology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and orthopedic surgeon Karl C. Roberts, MD, president of West Michigan Orthopaedics in Grand Rapids, among others.

Could you detail the clinical and cultural context for these recommendations?

Mr. Haque: Muslims currently make up 1.1% of the U.S. population, or 3.45 million people. This guidance provides advice to Muslim patients with KOA in a culturally sensitive manner that can supplement standard care. Prayer, or Salah, is a religious obligation typically performed in 17-48 daily repetitions of squatting, floor sitting, full-knee flexion, and kneeling. For patients with KOA, prayer can be painful, and a few studies have found a link between these repeated movements and KOA progression.

Carlina Teteris/Moment/Getty Images

Yet recommending stopping or limiting prayer is insensitive, so our group did a thorough literature search to identify easily implemented and culturally appropriate ways to ease praying.

Is there a traditional preference for praying on a hard surface?

Mr. Haque: Prayer can be performed on any surface that is clean and free from impurities. Cushioned and carpeted surfaces are permissible if the surface is somewhat firm and supportive for when worshippers prostrate themselves and put their faces on the ground. For example, compacted snow that wouldn’t allow the face to sink into it is permissible, but snow that is soft and would allow the face to sink in is not.

Have an increasing number of older patients raised the issue of knee pain during prayers?

Mr. Haque: We found no research on this in the literature. Anecdotally, however, two of our authors lead prayer in large Muslim communities in Detroit, and people often share with them that they feel discomfort during prayer and ask if there is anything they can do to limit this.

It is important to dispel the common myth that after total knee replacement one cannot kneel. About 20% of patients have some anterior knee discomfort after total knee arthroplasty, which can be exacerbated by kneeling, but kneeling causes no harm and can be done safely.

Could you outline the main recommendations?

Mr. Haque: These fall under three main categories: prayer surface, mechanics, and lifestyle modifications. The surface recommendations essentially advise using prayer rugs that provide cushioning or using cushioned kneepads.

The mechanics recommendations involve bracing with the palms down, standing up using the hands and knees, and guiding prayer motions with the hands. Chairs may be used as well.

Lifestyle recommendations outline home-exercise programs tailored to KOA and suggest the use of ice and compression during acute exacerbations.

Could these recommendations benefit other arthritic joints such as the wrists?

Mr. Haque: Anecdotally, our authors do not hear about pain in joints except for the knee and spine. To a limited extent, some of these recommendations may help patients with spinal arthritis as well.

What do you see as the greatest obstacle to implementation?

Mr. Haque: These recommendations, although permissible in the Muslim faith, are not part of traditional ritual and thus patients may simply forget to implement them. We advise physicians to ask patients which recommendations they are most likely to follow and to monitor how these have worked for them.

What is your best overall advice for broaching this issue with patients?

Mr. Haque: Holistic, functional, and culturally sensitive recommendations will be highly appreciated. Physicians are therefore encouraged to share this guidance with Muslim patients while using terms such as Salah, pronounced saa-laah, and Sajdah, pronounced sajduh and meaning prostration, and engage in a healthy dialogue.

These guidelines received no funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests relevant to their recommendations, but Dr. Magrey reported consulting and research relationships with private-sector companies outside of this work.

For devout Muslims, praying multiple times a day is a lifelong observance and a core aspect of their faith. But osteoarthritis of the knee (KOA) can make kneeling and prostration challenging. To address this problem in an aging U.S. Muslim population, a multicenter team developed literature-based guidelines published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In an interview, corresponding author Mahfujul Z. Haque, a medical student at Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, discussed the guide, which he assembled with Marina N. Magrey, MD, the Ronald Moskowitz Professor of Rheumatology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and orthopedic surgeon Karl C. Roberts, MD, president of West Michigan Orthopaedics in Grand Rapids, among others.

Could you detail the clinical and cultural context for these recommendations?

Mr. Haque: Muslims currently make up 1.1% of the U.S. population, or 3.45 million people. This guidance provides advice to Muslim patients with KOA in a culturally sensitive manner that can supplement standard care. Prayer, or Salah, is a religious obligation typically performed in 17-48 daily repetitions of squatting, floor sitting, full-knee flexion, and kneeling. For patients with KOA, prayer can be painful, and a few studies have found a link between these repeated movements and KOA progression.

Carlina Teteris/Moment/Getty Images

Yet recommending stopping or limiting prayer is insensitive, so our group did a thorough literature search to identify easily implemented and culturally appropriate ways to ease praying.

Is there a traditional preference for praying on a hard surface?

Mr. Haque: Prayer can be performed on any surface that is clean and free from impurities. Cushioned and carpeted surfaces are permissible if the surface is somewhat firm and supportive for when worshippers prostrate themselves and put their faces on the ground. For example, compacted snow that wouldn’t allow the face to sink into it is permissible, but snow that is soft and would allow the face to sink in is not.

Have an increasing number of older patients raised the issue of knee pain during prayers?

Mr. Haque: We found no research on this in the literature. Anecdotally, however, two of our authors lead prayer in large Muslim communities in Detroit, and people often share with them that they feel discomfort during prayer and ask if there is anything they can do to limit this.

It is important to dispel the common myth that after total knee replacement one cannot kneel. About 20% of patients have some anterior knee discomfort after total knee arthroplasty, which can be exacerbated by kneeling, but kneeling causes no harm and can be done safely.

Could you outline the main recommendations?

Mr. Haque: These fall under three main categories: prayer surface, mechanics, and lifestyle modifications. The surface recommendations essentially advise using prayer rugs that provide cushioning or using cushioned kneepads.

The mechanics recommendations involve bracing with the palms down, standing up using the hands and knees, and guiding prayer motions with the hands. Chairs may be used as well.

Lifestyle recommendations outline home-exercise programs tailored to KOA and suggest the use of ice and compression during acute exacerbations.

Could these recommendations benefit other arthritic joints such as the wrists?

Mr. Haque: Anecdotally, our authors do not hear about pain in joints except for the knee and spine. To a limited extent, some of these recommendations may help patients with spinal arthritis as well.

What do you see as the greatest obstacle to implementation?

Mr. Haque: These recommendations, although permissible in the Muslim faith, are not part of traditional ritual and thus patients may simply forget to implement them. We advise physicians to ask patients which recommendations they are most likely to follow and to monitor how these have worked for them.

What is your best overall advice for broaching this issue with patients?

Mr. Haque: Holistic, functional, and culturally sensitive recommendations will be highly appreciated. Physicians are therefore encouraged to share this guidance with Muslim patients while using terms such as Salah, pronounced saa-laah, and Sajdah, pronounced sajduh and meaning prostration, and engage in a healthy dialogue.

These guidelines received no funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests relevant to their recommendations, but Dr. Magrey reported consulting and research relationships with private-sector companies outside of this work.

Patients with the systemic sclerosis subtype of pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a distinctive bioactive metabolic profile associated with more severe disease than other subgroups, based on data from approximately 1,500 individuals.

The overall prognosis and therapeutic response for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc-PAH) tends to be worse than for patients with other types of PAH, such as idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), but the impact of different metabolite profiles among subtypes of disease has not been explored, wrote Mona Alotaibi, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

“Recently, metabolic dysregulation has been proposed as a key mechanism by which IPAH and SSc-PAH differ and could control such disparities,” they noted. Clarifying the molecular mechanisms of SSc-PAH could inform management and treatment, they added.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers sought to identify a bioactive lipid signature unique to SSc-PAH. They identified 400 patients with SSc-PAH and 1,082 with IPAH. An additional 100 patients with scleroderma but no PH and 44 patients with scleroderma who had PH were included for external validation. The mean ages of the patients with IPAH and SSc-PAH in the discovery and validation cohorts ranged from approximately 51 to 65 years; more than 75% of patients across the groups were women.

The researchers tested more than 700 bioactive lipid metabolites using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. They found five metabolites that distinguished SSc-PAH and IPAH that were significantly associated with markers of disease severity: 17-beta estradiol, novel Eic, nervonic acid, fatty acid esters of hydroxy fatty acids, and prostaglandin F2 alpha (PGF 2 alpha).

The biomarkers were increased in SSc-PAH patients compared to patients with SSC alone, which suggests that the biomarkers are related to PAH and not to scleroderma alone, the researchers noted.

In particular, nervonic acid was associated with worse functional capacity, in SSc-PAH patients, as were higher levels of 17-beta estradiol and prostaglandin F2 alpha. Also, 17-beta estradiol was associated with lower cardiac impairment (CI) and stroke volume index (SVI) in SSc-PAH patients, but higher SVI in IPAH patients. PGF 2 alpha was associated with lower CI and SVI and higher pulmonary vascular resistance in SSc-PAH and IPAH combined.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to adjust for all potential confounders between IPAH and SSc-PAH, and the fact that a clear causal relationship could not be determined, the researchers noted. Inadequate statistical power to analyze SSc-PAH data was another limitation, and studies with detailed scleroderma phenotypes are needed to validate the results, they said.

However, the current study provides insight on the metabolic differences in SSc-PAH and the potential impact on disease pathology that may inform diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment strategies for SSc-PAH patients, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Several individual investigators received support from organizations including the American Heart Association and the Chest Foundation, and from companies including Livanova, Equillium, Corvus, Bayer, and Actelion, but the authors had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with the systemic sclerosis subtype of pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a distinctive bioactive metabolic profile associated with more severe disease than other subgroups, based on data from approximately 1,500 individuals.

The overall prognosis and therapeutic response for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc-PAH) tends to be worse than for patients with other types of PAH, such as idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), but the impact of different metabolite profiles among subtypes of disease has not been explored, wrote Mona Alotaibi, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

“Recently, metabolic dysregulation has been proposed as a key mechanism by which IPAH and SSc-PAH differ and could control such disparities,” they noted. Clarifying the molecular mechanisms of SSc-PAH could inform management and treatment, they added.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers sought to identify a bioactive lipid signature unique to SSc-PAH. They identified 400 patients with SSc-PAH and 1,082 with IPAH. An additional 100 patients with scleroderma but no PH and 44 patients with scleroderma who had PH were included for external validation. The mean ages of the patients with IPAH and SSc-PAH in the discovery and validation cohorts ranged from approximately 51 to 65 years; more than 75% of patients across the groups were women.

The researchers tested more than 700 bioactive lipid metabolites using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. They found five metabolites that distinguished SSc-PAH and IPAH that were significantly associated with markers of disease severity: 17-beta estradiol, novel Eic, nervonic acid, fatty acid esters of hydroxy fatty acids, and prostaglandin F2 alpha (PGF 2 alpha).

The biomarkers were increased in SSc-PAH patients compared to patients with SSC alone, which suggests that the biomarkers are related to PAH and not to scleroderma alone, the researchers noted.

In particular, nervonic acid was associated with worse functional capacity, in SSc-PAH patients, as were higher levels of 17-beta estradiol and prostaglandin F2 alpha. Also, 17-beta estradiol was associated with lower cardiac impairment (CI) and stroke volume index (SVI) in SSc-PAH patients, but higher SVI in IPAH patients. PGF 2 alpha was associated with lower CI and SVI and higher pulmonary vascular resistance in SSc-PAH and IPAH combined.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to adjust for all potential confounders between IPAH and SSc-PAH, and the fact that a clear causal relationship could not be determined, the researchers noted. Inadequate statistical power to analyze SSc-PAH data was another limitation, and studies with detailed scleroderma phenotypes are needed to validate the results, they said.

However, the current study provides insight on the metabolic differences in SSc-PAH and the potential impact on disease pathology that may inform diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment strategies for SSc-PAH patients, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Several individual investigators received support from organizations including the American Heart Association and the Chest Foundation, and from companies including Livanova, Equillium, Corvus, Bayer, and Actelion, but the authors had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with the systemic sclerosis subtype of pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a distinctive bioactive metabolic profile associated with more severe disease than other subgroups, based on data from approximately 1,500 individuals.

The overall prognosis and therapeutic response for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc-PAH) tends to be worse than for patients with other types of PAH, such as idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), but the impact of different metabolite profiles among subtypes of disease has not been explored, wrote Mona Alotaibi, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

“Recently, metabolic dysregulation has been proposed as a key mechanism by which IPAH and SSc-PAH differ and could control such disparities,” they noted. Clarifying the molecular mechanisms of SSc-PAH could inform management and treatment, they added.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers sought to identify a bioactive lipid signature unique to SSc-PAH. They identified 400 patients with SSc-PAH and 1,082 with IPAH. An additional 100 patients with scleroderma but no PH and 44 patients with scleroderma who had PH were included for external validation. The mean ages of the patients with IPAH and SSc-PAH in the discovery and validation cohorts ranged from approximately 51 to 65 years; more than 75% of patients across the groups were women.

The researchers tested more than 700 bioactive lipid metabolites using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. They found five metabolites that distinguished SSc-PAH and IPAH that were significantly associated with markers of disease severity: 17-beta estradiol, novel Eic, nervonic acid, fatty acid esters of hydroxy fatty acids, and prostaglandin F2 alpha (PGF 2 alpha).

The biomarkers were increased in SSc-PAH patients compared to patients with SSC alone, which suggests that the biomarkers are related to PAH and not to scleroderma alone, the researchers noted.

In particular, nervonic acid was associated with worse functional capacity, in SSc-PAH patients, as were higher levels of 17-beta estradiol and prostaglandin F2 alpha. Also, 17-beta estradiol was associated with lower cardiac impairment (CI) and stroke volume index (SVI) in SSc-PAH patients, but higher SVI in IPAH patients. PGF 2 alpha was associated with lower CI and SVI and higher pulmonary vascular resistance in SSc-PAH and IPAH combined.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to adjust for all potential confounders between IPAH and SSc-PAH, and the fact that a clear causal relationship could not be determined, the researchers noted. Inadequate statistical power to analyze SSc-PAH data was another limitation, and studies with detailed scleroderma phenotypes are needed to validate the results, they said.

However, the current study provides insight on the metabolic differences in SSc-PAH and the potential impact on disease pathology that may inform diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment strategies for SSc-PAH patients, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Several individual investigators received support from organizations including the American Heart Association and the Chest Foundation, and from companies including Livanova, Equillium, Corvus, Bayer, and Actelion, but the authors had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The effectiveness of up to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine was moderate overall and significantly lower among individuals with immunocompromising conditions, compared with the general population during the period of Omicron dominance, according to an analysis of data from more than 34,000 hospitalizations.

Previous studies have suggested lower COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among immunocompromised individuals, compared with healthy individuals from the general population, but data from the period in which Omicron subvariants have been dominant are limited, wrote Amadea Britton, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team, and colleagues.

The CDC currently recommends an expanded primary vaccine series of three doses of an mRNA vaccine, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended a fourth dose with the new bivalent booster that contains elements of the Omicron variant, the researchers noted.

In a study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the researchers identified 34,220 adults with immunocompromising conditions who were hospitalized for COVID-19–like illness between Dec. 16, 2021, and Aug. 20, 2022. These conditions included solid malignancy (40.5%), hematologic malignancy (14.6%), rheumatologic or inflammatory disorder (24.4%), other intrinsic immune condition or immunodeficiency (38.5%), or organ or stem cell transplant (8.6%). They used data from the CDC’s VISION Network, a multistate database. The data include spring and summer 2022, when the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants dominated other strains, and adults with immunocompromising conditions were eligible for a total of four vaccine doses (two primary doses and two boosters). The median age of the study population was 69 years, and 25.7%, 41.7%, and 7.0% had received two, three, and four doses, respectively, of COVID-19 vaccine.

Overall, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among immunocompromised patients was 34% after two vaccine doses, increasing to 71% during days 7-89 after a third dose, then declining to 41% 90 days or more after that dose.

During the full Omicron period, VE was 36% for 14 or more days after dose two, 69% for 7-89 days after dose three, and 44% for 90 or more days after dose three.

When VE was stratified by sublineage period, VE was higher 7 or more days after dose three during the predominance of BA.1 (67%), compared with VE during the dominant periods of BA.2/BA.2.12.1 (32%) and BA.4/BA.5 (35%).

In the later periods when Omicron BA.2/BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 variants dominated, and individuals who had received three doses of vaccine were eligible for a fourth, VE against these variants was 32% 90 or more days after dose three and 43% 7 or more days after dose four.

VE was lowest among individuals with potentially more severe immunocompromising conditions, notably solid organ or stem cell transplants, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of ICD-9 and -10 discharge diagnosis codes for immunocompromising conditions, potential confounding in VE models, lack of data on outpatient treatments such as nirmatelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), and lack of COVID-19 genomic sequencing data that may have affected which sublineage was identified, the researchers noted.

However, “this study confirms that even with boosters, immunocompromised adults, because of their weakened immune systems, are still at high risk of moderate to severe COVID,” said coauthor Brian Dixon, PhD, of the Regenstrief Institute and Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, in a press release about the study.

“Given the incomplete protection against hospitalization afforded by monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, persons with immunocompromising conditions might benefit from updated bivalent vaccine booster doses that target recently circulating Omicron sublineages, in line with ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendations,” the researchers concluded in the study.

The study was funded by the CDC. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The VISION Network is a collaboration between the CDC, the Regenstrief Institute, and seven health care systems across the United States: Columbia University Irving Medical Center (New York), HealthPartners (Wisconsin), Intermountain Healthcare (Utah), Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (Washington State), the University of Colorado, and Paso Del Norte Health Information Exchange (Texas).

The effectiveness of up to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine was moderate overall and significantly lower among individuals with immunocompromising conditions, compared with the general population during the period of Omicron dominance, according to an analysis of data from more than 34,000 hospitalizations.

Previous studies have suggested lower COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among immunocompromised individuals, compared with healthy individuals from the general population, but data from the period in which Omicron subvariants have been dominant are limited, wrote Amadea Britton, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team, and colleagues.

The CDC currently recommends an expanded primary vaccine series of three doses of an mRNA vaccine, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended a fourth dose with the new bivalent booster that contains elements of the Omicron variant, the researchers noted.

In a study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the researchers identified 34,220 adults with immunocompromising conditions who were hospitalized for COVID-19–like illness between Dec. 16, 2021, and Aug. 20, 2022. These conditions included solid malignancy (40.5%), hematologic malignancy (14.6%), rheumatologic or inflammatory disorder (24.4%), other intrinsic immune condition or immunodeficiency (38.5%), or organ or stem cell transplant (8.6%). They used data from the CDC’s VISION Network, a multistate database. The data include spring and summer 2022, when the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants dominated other strains, and adults with immunocompromising conditions were eligible for a total of four vaccine doses (two primary doses and two boosters). The median age of the study population was 69 years, and 25.7%, 41.7%, and 7.0% had received two, three, and four doses, respectively, of COVID-19 vaccine.

Overall, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among immunocompromised patients was 34% after two vaccine doses, increasing to 71% during days 7-89 after a third dose, then declining to 41% 90 days or more after that dose.

During the full Omicron period, VE was 36% for 14 or more days after dose two, 69% for 7-89 days after dose three, and 44% for 90 or more days after dose three.

When VE was stratified by sublineage period, VE was higher 7 or more days after dose three during the predominance of BA.1 (67%), compared with VE during the dominant periods of BA.2/BA.2.12.1 (32%) and BA.4/BA.5 (35%).

In the later periods when Omicron BA.2/BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 variants dominated, and individuals who had received three doses of vaccine were eligible for a fourth, VE against these variants was 32% 90 or more days after dose three and 43% 7 or more days after dose four.

VE was lowest among individuals with potentially more severe immunocompromising conditions, notably solid organ or stem cell transplants, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of ICD-9 and -10 discharge diagnosis codes for immunocompromising conditions, potential confounding in VE models, lack of data on outpatient treatments such as nirmatelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), and lack of COVID-19 genomic sequencing data that may have affected which sublineage was identified, the researchers noted.

However, “this study confirms that even with boosters, immunocompromised adults, because of their weakened immune systems, are still at high risk of moderate to severe COVID,” said coauthor Brian Dixon, PhD, of the Regenstrief Institute and Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, in a press release about the study.

“Given the incomplete protection against hospitalization afforded by monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, persons with immunocompromising conditions might benefit from updated bivalent vaccine booster doses that target recently circulating Omicron sublineages, in line with ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendations,” the researchers concluded in the study.

The study was funded by the CDC. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The VISION Network is a collaboration between the CDC, the Regenstrief Institute, and seven health care systems across the United States: Columbia University Irving Medical Center (New York), HealthPartners (Wisconsin), Intermountain Healthcare (Utah), Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (Washington State), the University of Colorado, and Paso Del Norte Health Information Exchange (Texas).

The effectiveness of up to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine was moderate overall and significantly lower among individuals with immunocompromising conditions, compared with the general population during the period of Omicron dominance, according to an analysis of data from more than 34,000 hospitalizations.

Previous studies have suggested lower COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among immunocompromised individuals, compared with healthy individuals from the general population, but data from the period in which Omicron subvariants have been dominant are limited, wrote Amadea Britton, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team, and colleagues.

The CDC currently recommends an expanded primary vaccine series of three doses of an mRNA vaccine, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended a fourth dose with the new bivalent booster that contains elements of the Omicron variant, the researchers noted.

In a study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the researchers identified 34,220 adults with immunocompromising conditions who were hospitalized for COVID-19–like illness between Dec. 16, 2021, and Aug. 20, 2022. These conditions included solid malignancy (40.5%), hematologic malignancy (14.6%), rheumatologic or inflammatory disorder (24.4%), other intrinsic immune condition or immunodeficiency (38.5%), or organ or stem cell transplant (8.6%). They used data from the CDC’s VISION Network, a multistate database. The data include spring and summer 2022, when the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants dominated other strains, and adults with immunocompromising conditions were eligible for a total of four vaccine doses (two primary doses and two boosters). The median age of the study population was 69 years, and 25.7%, 41.7%, and 7.0% had received two, three, and four doses, respectively, of COVID-19 vaccine.

Overall, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among immunocompromised patients was 34% after two vaccine doses, increasing to 71% during days 7-89 after a third dose, then declining to 41% 90 days or more after that dose.

During the full Omicron period, VE was 36% for 14 or more days after dose two, 69% for 7-89 days after dose three, and 44% for 90 or more days after dose three.

When VE was stratified by sublineage period, VE was higher 7 or more days after dose three during the predominance of BA.1 (67%), compared with VE during the dominant periods of BA.2/BA.2.12.1 (32%) and BA.4/BA.5 (35%).

In the later periods when Omicron BA.2/BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 variants dominated, and individuals who had received three doses of vaccine were eligible for a fourth, VE against these variants was 32% 90 or more days after dose three and 43% 7 or more days after dose four.

VE was lowest among individuals with potentially more severe immunocompromising conditions, notably solid organ or stem cell transplants, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of ICD-9 and -10 discharge diagnosis codes for immunocompromising conditions, potential confounding in VE models, lack of data on outpatient treatments such as nirmatelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), and lack of COVID-19 genomic sequencing data that may have affected which sublineage was identified, the researchers noted.

However, “this study confirms that even with boosters, immunocompromised adults, because of their weakened immune systems, are still at high risk of moderate to severe COVID,” said coauthor Brian Dixon, PhD, of the Regenstrief Institute and Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, in a press release about the study.

“Given the incomplete protection against hospitalization afforded by monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, persons with immunocompromising conditions might benefit from updated bivalent vaccine booster doses that target recently circulating Omicron sublineages, in line with ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendations,” the researchers concluded in the study.

The study was funded by the CDC. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The VISION Network is a collaboration between the CDC, the Regenstrief Institute, and seven health care systems across the United States: Columbia University Irving Medical Center (New York), HealthPartners (Wisconsin), Intermountain Healthcare (Utah), Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (Washington State), the University of Colorado, and Paso Del Norte Health Information Exchange (Texas).

A new study based on U.S. veterans’ medical records adds to the evidence for a link between gout – especially poorly controlled cases – and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Tate Johnson, MD, reported at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network.

Gout was associated with a 68% increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 25% increased risk of HF-related death, and a 22% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), said Dr. Johnson, of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Poorly controlled serum urate was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT). He said more research is needed to see if there is a causal link between gout, hyperuricemia – or its treatment – and CVD risk.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues used records from the Veterans Health Administration for this study. They created a retrospective, matched cohort study that looked at records dating from January 1999 to September 2015. Patients with gout (≥ 2 ICD-9 codes) were matched 1:10 on age, sex, and year of VHA enrollment to patients without a gout ICD-9 code or a record of receiving ULT. They matched 559,243 people with gout to 5,407,379 people who did not have a diagnosis or a recorded treatment for this condition.

Over 43,331,604 person-years, Dr. Johnson and colleagues observed 137,162 CVD events in gout (incidence rate 33.96 per 1,000 person-years) vs. 879,903 in non-gout patients (IR 22.37 per 1,000 person-years). Gout was most strongly associated with HF hospitalization, with a nearly threefold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.73-2.83), which attenuated but persisted after adjustment for additional CVD risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65-1.70) and excluding patients with prevalent HF (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.64).

People with gout were also at higher risk of HF-related death (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.21-1.29), MACE (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23), and coronary artery disease–related death (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20-1.22).

Among people with gout in the study, poor serum urate control was associated with a higher risk of all CVD events, with the highest CVD risk occurring in patients with inadequately controlled serum urate despite receipt of ULT, particularly related to HF hospitalization (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34-1.52) and HF-related death (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61).

Limits of the study include the generalizability of the study population. Reflecting the VHA’s patient population, 99% of the cohort were men, with 62% of the gout group and 59.4% of the control group identifying as White and non-Hispanic.

The study provides evidence that may be found only by studying medical records, Richard J. Johnson, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

Dr. Richard Johnson, who is not related to the author, said that only about one-third of people with gout are adequately treated, and about another one-third take urate-lowering therapy (ULT) but fail to get their serum urate level under control. But it would be unethical to design a clinical trial to study CVD risk and poorly controlled serum urate without ULT treatment.

“The only way you can figure out if uric acid lowering is going to help these guys is to actually do a study like this where you see the ones who don’t get adequate treatment versus adequate treatment and you show that there’s going to be a difference in outcome,” he said.

Dr. Richard Johnson contrasted this approach with the one used in the recently reported study that appeared to cast doubt on the link between serum uric acid levels and cardiovascular disease. The ALL-HEART trial found that allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic heart disease. But these patients did not have gout, and that was a critical difference, he said.

He noted that it was not surprising that the results of ALL-HEART were negative, given the study design.

“The ALL-HEART study treated people regardless of their uric acid level, and they also excluded subjects who had a history of gout,” he said. “Yet the risk associated with uric acid occurs primarily among those with elevated serum uric acid levels and those with gout.”

The study received funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the VHA. Neither Dr. Tate Johnson nor Dr. Richard Johnson had any relevant disclosures.

A new study based on U.S. veterans’ medical records adds to the evidence for a link between gout – especially poorly controlled cases – and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Tate Johnson, MD, reported at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network.

Gout was associated with a 68% increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 25% increased risk of HF-related death, and a 22% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), said Dr. Johnson, of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Poorly controlled serum urate was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT). He said more research is needed to see if there is a causal link between gout, hyperuricemia – or its treatment – and CVD risk.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues used records from the Veterans Health Administration for this study. They created a retrospective, matched cohort study that looked at records dating from January 1999 to September 2015. Patients with gout (≥ 2 ICD-9 codes) were matched 1:10 on age, sex, and year of VHA enrollment to patients without a gout ICD-9 code or a record of receiving ULT. They matched 559,243 people with gout to 5,407,379 people who did not have a diagnosis or a recorded treatment for this condition.

Over 43,331,604 person-years, Dr. Johnson and colleagues observed 137,162 CVD events in gout (incidence rate 33.96 per 1,000 person-years) vs. 879,903 in non-gout patients (IR 22.37 per 1,000 person-years). Gout was most strongly associated with HF hospitalization, with a nearly threefold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.73-2.83), which attenuated but persisted after adjustment for additional CVD risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65-1.70) and excluding patients with prevalent HF (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.64).

People with gout were also at higher risk of HF-related death (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.21-1.29), MACE (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23), and coronary artery disease–related death (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20-1.22).

Among people with gout in the study, poor serum urate control was associated with a higher risk of all CVD events, with the highest CVD risk occurring in patients with inadequately controlled serum urate despite receipt of ULT, particularly related to HF hospitalization (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34-1.52) and HF-related death (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61).

Limits of the study include the generalizability of the study population. Reflecting the VHA’s patient population, 99% of the cohort were men, with 62% of the gout group and 59.4% of the control group identifying as White and non-Hispanic.

The study provides evidence that may be found only by studying medical records, Richard J. Johnson, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

Dr. Richard Johnson, who is not related to the author, said that only about one-third of people with gout are adequately treated, and about another one-third take urate-lowering therapy (ULT) but fail to get their serum urate level under control. But it would be unethical to design a clinical trial to study CVD risk and poorly controlled serum urate without ULT treatment.

“The only way you can figure out if uric acid lowering is going to help these guys is to actually do a study like this where you see the ones who don’t get adequate treatment versus adequate treatment and you show that there’s going to be a difference in outcome,” he said.

Dr. Richard Johnson contrasted this approach with the one used in the recently reported study that appeared to cast doubt on the link between serum uric acid levels and cardiovascular disease. The ALL-HEART trial found that allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic heart disease. But these patients did not have gout, and that was a critical difference, he said.

He noted that it was not surprising that the results of ALL-HEART were negative, given the study design.

“The ALL-HEART study treated people regardless of their uric acid level, and they also excluded subjects who had a history of gout,” he said. “Yet the risk associated with uric acid occurs primarily among those with elevated serum uric acid levels and those with gout.”

The study received funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the VHA. Neither Dr. Tate Johnson nor Dr. Richard Johnson had any relevant disclosures.

A new study based on U.S. veterans’ medical records adds to the evidence for a link between gout – especially poorly controlled cases – and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Tate Johnson, MD, reported at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network.

Gout was associated with a 68% increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 25% increased risk of HF-related death, and a 22% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), said Dr. Johnson, of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Poorly controlled serum urate was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT). He said more research is needed to see if there is a causal link between gout, hyperuricemia – or its treatment – and CVD risk.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues used records from the Veterans Health Administration for this study. They created a retrospective, matched cohort study that looked at records dating from January 1999 to September 2015. Patients with gout (≥ 2 ICD-9 codes) were matched 1:10 on age, sex, and year of VHA enrollment to patients without a gout ICD-9 code or a record of receiving ULT. They matched 559,243 people with gout to 5,407,379 people who did not have a diagnosis or a recorded treatment for this condition.

Over 43,331,604 person-years, Dr. Johnson and colleagues observed 137,162 CVD events in gout (incidence rate 33.96 per 1,000 person-years) vs. 879,903 in non-gout patients (IR 22.37 per 1,000 person-years). Gout was most strongly associated with HF hospitalization, with a nearly threefold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.73-2.83), which attenuated but persisted after adjustment for additional CVD risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65-1.70) and excluding patients with prevalent HF (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.64).

People with gout were also at higher risk of HF-related death (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.21-1.29), MACE (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23), and coronary artery disease–related death (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20-1.22).

Among people with gout in the study, poor serum urate control was associated with a higher risk of all CVD events, with the highest CVD risk occurring in patients with inadequately controlled serum urate despite receipt of ULT, particularly related to HF hospitalization (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34-1.52) and HF-related death (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61).

Limits of the study include the generalizability of the study population. Reflecting the VHA’s patient population, 99% of the cohort were men, with 62% of the gout group and 59.4% of the control group identifying as White and non-Hispanic.

The study provides evidence that may be found only by studying medical records, Richard J. Johnson, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

Dr. Richard Johnson, who is not related to the author, said that only about one-third of people with gout are adequately treated, and about another one-third take urate-lowering therapy (ULT) but fail to get their serum urate level under control. But it would be unethical to design a clinical trial to study CVD risk and poorly controlled serum urate without ULT treatment.

“The only way you can figure out if uric acid lowering is going to help these guys is to actually do a study like this where you see the ones who don’t get adequate treatment versus adequate treatment and you show that there’s going to be a difference in outcome,” he said.

Dr. Richard Johnson contrasted this approach with the one used in the recently reported study that appeared to cast doubt on the link between serum uric acid levels and cardiovascular disease. The ALL-HEART trial found that allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic heart disease. But these patients did not have gout, and that was a critical difference, he said.

He noted that it was not surprising that the results of ALL-HEART were negative, given the study design.

“The ALL-HEART study treated people regardless of their uric acid level, and they also excluded subjects who had a history of gout,” he said. “Yet the risk associated with uric acid occurs primarily among those with elevated serum uric acid levels and those with gout.”

The study received funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the VHA. Neither Dr. Tate Johnson nor Dr. Richard Johnson had any relevant disclosures.

Comorbidities may play a greater role than genetics women with gout, although this appears not to be true for men, Nicholas Sumpter, MSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham said at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network (G-CAN).

Mr. Sumpter was among the authors of a recent paper in Arthritis & Rheumatology that suggested that earlier gout onset involves the accumulation of certain allelic variants in men. This genetic risk was shared across multiple ancestral groups in the study, conducted with men of European and Polynesian ancestry, Mr. Sumpter and colleagues reported.

“There might be more than one factor in gout in men, but in women we’ve been getting at this idea that comorbidities are the big thing,” he said.

During his presentation, Mr. Sumpter offered a hypothesis that in men there might be a kind of “two-pronged attack,” with increases in serum urate linked to genetic risk, but comorbidities also playing a role. “But that may not be the case for women.”

In his presentation, Mr. Sumpter noted a paper published in March 2022 from his University of Alabama at Birmingham colleagues, Aakash V. Patel, MD, and Angelo L. Gaffo, MD. In the article, Dr. Patel and Dr. Gaffo delved into the challenges of treating women with gout given “the paucity of appropriately well-powered, randomized-controlled trials investigating the efficacy” of commonly used treatments.

“This poses major challenges for the management of female gout patients since they carry a greater burden of cardiovascular and renal morbidity, which is known to modulate the pathophysiology of gout; as such, conclusions regarding the efficacy of treatments for females cannot be extrapolated from investigative studies that are predominantly male,” they wrote, calling for increased efforts to enroll women in studies of treatments for this condition.

There’s increased interest in how gout affects women, including findings in a paper published in September in Arthritis & Rheumatology that found people with gout, especially women, appear to be at higher risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death, regardless of COVID-19 vaccination status.

Gout has become more common in women, although this remains a condition that is far more likely to strike men.

The age-standardized prevalence of gout among women rose from 233.52 per 100,000 in 1990 to 253.49 in 2017, a gain of about 9%, according to a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study.

That topped the roughly 5% gain seen for men in the same time frame, with the rate going from 747.48 per 100,000 to 790.90. With the aging of the global population, gout’s burden in terms of prevalence and disability is expected to increase.

Impact of obesity and healthy eating patterns

Obesity, or excess adiposity, appears to be of particular concern for women in terms of gout risk.

While obesity and genetic predisposition both are strongly associated with a higher risk of gout, the excess risk of both combined was higher than the sum of each, particularly among women, Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and coauthors reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

These findings suggested that “addressing excess adiposity could prevent a large proportion of female gout cases in particular, as well as its cardiometabolic comorbidities, and the benefit could be greater in genetically predisposed women,” they wrote.

In general, there’s a need to re-examine the advice given by many clinicians in the past that people with gout, or those at risk for it, should follow a low-protein diet to avoid purines, Dr. McCormick said in an interview.

“Now we’re finding that a healthier diet that balances protein as well as fat intake can actually be better both for cardiovascular health and for gout prevention,” she said.

Dr. McCormick’s research on this topic includes a 2022 JAMA Internal Medicine article, and a 2021 article in Current Rheumatology Reports. In the latter article, Dr. McCormick and colleagues examined the benefits of changing habits for patients, such as following one of several well-established healthy eating patterns, including the Mediterranean and DASH diets.

With excess weight and associated cardiovascular and endocrine risks already elevated among people with gout, especially women, the “conventional low-purine (i.e., low-protein) approach to gout dietary guidance is neither helpful nor sustainable and may lead to detrimental effects related to worsening insulin resistance as a result of substitution of healthy proteins with unhealthy carbohydrates or fats,” they wrote. “Rather, by focusing our dietary recommendations on healthy eating patterns which have been proven to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, as opposed to singular ‘good’ or ‘bad’ food items or groups, the beneficial effects of such diets on relevant gout endpoints should naturally follow for the majority of typical gout cases, mediated through changes in insulin resistance.”

Mr. Sumpter and Dr. McCormick had no competing interests to declare.

Comorbidities may play a greater role than genetics women with gout, although this appears not to be true for men, Nicholas Sumpter, MSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham said at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network (G-CAN).

Mr. Sumpter was among the authors of a recent paper in Arthritis & Rheumatology that suggested that earlier gout onset involves the accumulation of certain allelic variants in men. This genetic risk was shared across multiple ancestral groups in the study, conducted with men of European and Polynesian ancestry, Mr. Sumpter and colleagues reported.

“There might be more than one factor in gout in men, but in women we’ve been getting at this idea that comorbidities are the big thing,” he said.

During his presentation, Mr. Sumpter offered a hypothesis that in men there might be a kind of “two-pronged attack,” with increases in serum urate linked to genetic risk, but comorbidities also playing a role. “But that may not be the case for women.”

In his presentation, Mr. Sumpter noted a paper published in March 2022 from his University of Alabama at Birmingham colleagues, Aakash V. Patel, MD, and Angelo L. Gaffo, MD. In the article, Dr. Patel and Dr. Gaffo delved into the challenges of treating women with gout given “the paucity of appropriately well-powered, randomized-controlled trials investigating the efficacy” of commonly used treatments.

“This poses major challenges for the management of female gout patients since they carry a greater burden of cardiovascular and renal morbidity, which is known to modulate the pathophysiology of gout; as such, conclusions regarding the efficacy of treatments for females cannot be extrapolated from investigative studies that are predominantly male,” they wrote, calling for increased efforts to enroll women in studies of treatments for this condition.

There’s increased interest in how gout affects women, including findings in a paper published in September in Arthritis & Rheumatology that found people with gout, especially women, appear to be at higher risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death, regardless of COVID-19 vaccination status.

Gout has become more common in women, although this remains a condition that is far more likely to strike men.

The age-standardized prevalence of gout among women rose from 233.52 per 100,000 in 1990 to 253.49 in 2017, a gain of about 9%, according to a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study.

That topped the roughly 5% gain seen for men in the same time frame, with the rate going from 747.48 per 100,000 to 790.90. With the aging of the global population, gout’s burden in terms of prevalence and disability is expected to increase.

Impact of obesity and healthy eating patterns

Obesity, or excess adiposity, appears to be of particular concern for women in terms of gout risk.

While obesity and genetic predisposition both are strongly associated with a higher risk of gout, the excess risk of both combined was higher than the sum of each, particularly among women, Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and coauthors reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

These findings suggested that “addressing excess adiposity could prevent a large proportion of female gout cases in particular, as well as its cardiometabolic comorbidities, and the benefit could be greater in genetically predisposed women,” they wrote.

In general, there’s a need to re-examine the advice given by many clinicians in the past that people with gout, or those at risk for it, should follow a low-protein diet to avoid purines, Dr. McCormick said in an interview.

“Now we’re finding that a healthier diet that balances protein as well as fat intake can actually be better both for cardiovascular health and for gout prevention,” she said.

Dr. McCormick’s research on this topic includes a 2022 JAMA Internal Medicine article, and a 2021 article in Current Rheumatology Reports. In the latter article, Dr. McCormick and colleagues examined the benefits of changing habits for patients, such as following one of several well-established healthy eating patterns, including the Mediterranean and DASH diets.

With excess weight and associated cardiovascular and endocrine risks already elevated among people with gout, especially women, the “conventional low-purine (i.e., low-protein) approach to gout dietary guidance is neither helpful nor sustainable and may lead to detrimental effects related to worsening insulin resistance as a result of substitution of healthy proteins with unhealthy carbohydrates or fats,” they wrote. “Rather, by focusing our dietary recommendations on healthy eating patterns which have been proven to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, as opposed to singular ‘good’ or ‘bad’ food items or groups, the beneficial effects of such diets on relevant gout endpoints should naturally follow for the majority of typical gout cases, mediated through changes in insulin resistance.”

Mr. Sumpter and Dr. McCormick had no competing interests to declare.

Comorbidities may play a greater role than genetics women with gout, although this appears not to be true for men, Nicholas Sumpter, MSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham said at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network (G-CAN).

Mr. Sumpter was among the authors of a recent paper in Arthritis & Rheumatology that suggested that earlier gout onset involves the accumulation of certain allelic variants in men. This genetic risk was shared across multiple ancestral groups in the study, conducted with men of European and Polynesian ancestry, Mr. Sumpter and colleagues reported.

“There might be more than one factor in gout in men, but in women we’ve been getting at this idea that comorbidities are the big thing,” he said.

During his presentation, Mr. Sumpter offered a hypothesis that in men there might be a kind of “two-pronged attack,” with increases in serum urate linked to genetic risk, but comorbidities also playing a role. “But that may not be the case for women.”

In his presentation, Mr. Sumpter noted a paper published in March 2022 from his University of Alabama at Birmingham colleagues, Aakash V. Patel, MD, and Angelo L. Gaffo, MD. In the article, Dr. Patel and Dr. Gaffo delved into the challenges of treating women with gout given “the paucity of appropriately well-powered, randomized-controlled trials investigating the efficacy” of commonly used treatments.

“This poses major challenges for the management of female gout patients since they carry a greater burden of cardiovascular and renal morbidity, which is known to modulate the pathophysiology of gout; as such, conclusions regarding the efficacy of treatments for females cannot be extrapolated from investigative studies that are predominantly male,” they wrote, calling for increased efforts to enroll women in studies of treatments for this condition.

There’s increased interest in how gout affects women, including findings in a paper published in September in Arthritis & Rheumatology that found people with gout, especially women, appear to be at higher risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death, regardless of COVID-19 vaccination status.

Gout has become more common in women, although this remains a condition that is far more likely to strike men.

The age-standardized prevalence of gout among women rose from 233.52 per 100,000 in 1990 to 253.49 in 2017, a gain of about 9%, according to a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study.

That topped the roughly 5% gain seen for men in the same time frame, with the rate going from 747.48 per 100,000 to 790.90. With the aging of the global population, gout’s burden in terms of prevalence and disability is expected to increase.

Impact of obesity and healthy eating patterns

Obesity, or excess adiposity, appears to be of particular concern for women in terms of gout risk.

While obesity and genetic predisposition both are strongly associated with a higher risk of gout, the excess risk of both combined was higher than the sum of each, particularly among women, Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and coauthors reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

These findings suggested that “addressing excess adiposity could prevent a large proportion of female gout cases in particular, as well as its cardiometabolic comorbidities, and the benefit could be greater in genetically predisposed women,” they wrote.

In general, there’s a need to re-examine the advice given by many clinicians in the past that people with gout, or those at risk for it, should follow a low-protein diet to avoid purines, Dr. McCormick said in an interview.

“Now we’re finding that a healthier diet that balances protein as well as fat intake can actually be better both for cardiovascular health and for gout prevention,” she said.

Dr. McCormick’s research on this topic includes a 2022 JAMA Internal Medicine article, and a 2021 article in Current Rheumatology Reports. In the latter article, Dr. McCormick and colleagues examined the benefits of changing habits for patients, such as following one of several well-established healthy eating patterns, including the Mediterranean and DASH diets.

With excess weight and associated cardiovascular and endocrine risks already elevated among people with gout, especially women, the “conventional low-purine (i.e., low-protein) approach to gout dietary guidance is neither helpful nor sustainable and may lead to detrimental effects related to worsening insulin resistance as a result of substitution of healthy proteins with unhealthy carbohydrates or fats,” they wrote. “Rather, by focusing our dietary recommendations on healthy eating patterns which have been proven to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, as opposed to singular ‘good’ or ‘bad’ food items or groups, the beneficial effects of such diets on relevant gout endpoints should naturally follow for the majority of typical gout cases, mediated through changes in insulin resistance.”

Mr. Sumpter and Dr. McCormick had no competing interests to declare.

The effectiveness and safety of advanced therapies for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was a focus of many published studies last month. Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are a recent class of drugs made available to treat PsA and related diseases, and several clinical trials have been published. Sarabia and colleagues reported the results of a meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials including 6757 patients with psoriasis or PsA who received treatment with a JAKi or placebo. Their analyses revealed that treatment with JAKi vs placebo was associated with higher odds of achieving American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (odds ratio [OR] 4.45; 95% CI 3.64-5.44), with similar outcomes observed with tofacitinib vs placebo (OR 2.96; 95% CI 2.01-4.35) and non-tofacitinib JAKi vs placebo (OR 5.41; 95% CI 3.95-7.40). Serious adverse event rates were low (1%-7% in the maximum-dose intervention group).

Interleukin-23i (guselkumab, tildrakizumab, or risankizumab) are another class of biologics recently approved for the treatment of PsA. Preliminary results from a real-world study demonstrate the efficacy of these drugs for PsA. In a retrospective observational study including 80 patients with psoriasis (22 with PsA) who received guselkumab, tildrakizumab, or risankizumab, Elgaard and colleagues demonstrated that 40.9% or 36.4% of the PsA patients achieved complete or partial remission, respectively, compared with only 18.2% of patients with no improvement.

Regarding drug safety, a recent study demonstrated low rates of opportunistic infections with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) and targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). Vassilopoulos and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 47 randomized controlled trials and 26 follow-up extension studies that included patients with PsA who received at least one dose of a bDMARD or a tsDMARD (n = 11,790) or placebo (n = 6425) during the placebo-controlled period, and 17,197 patients who received at least one dose of a bDMARD or a tsDMARD in the long-term extension period.

The cumulative incidence of opportunistic infections was < 3% when stratified by the mechanism of action: JAKi (2.72%; 95% CI 1.05%-5.04%), anti-interleukin (IL)-17i (1.18%; 95% CI 0.60%-1.90%), anti-IL-23i (0.24%; 95% CI 0.04%-0.54%), and TNFi (0.01%; 95% CI 0.00%-0.21%). These results are consistent with my own observations in my clinic. Thus, currently available advanced therapies, including JAKi and IL-23i, are effective and safe for the management of patients with PsA when used as monotherapy with or without conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD). Ongoing studies on combination therapy will provide us with guidance on the efficacy and safety of combining these drugs for the treatment of resistant disease.

Many patients do not respond to treatment, however. Actionable risk factors for lack of response are of clinical interest. One such factor is obesity. In an observational study of 774 adult PsA patients who started their first b/tsDMARD, Vallejo-Yague and colleagues reported that the odds of achieving minimal disease activity (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.45; 95% CI 0.24-0.82) and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA)-remission (aOR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.85) were lower in the obese vs normal-weight group within the first year. Thus, obese patients had ~50% lower likelihood of achieving a state of low disease activity. Comprehensive management of PsA must include management of obesity and other comorbid conditions to achieve optimal outcomes.

Finally, an interesting study by Freuer and colleagues used bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization in 12,882 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 21,770 matched controls, 5621 patients with psoriasis, 2063 patients with PsA, and 252,323 controls. The study found that genetically predicted IBD was associated with a higher risk for PsA (pooled OR 1.11; P = .003) with the risk being majorly mediated by Crohn's disease (OR 1.12; P = .002) and not ulcerative colitis (P = .70). Thus, patients with Crohn's disease need to be carefully evaluated for the development of PsA.

The effectiveness and safety of advanced therapies for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was a focus of many published studies last month. Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are a recent class of drugs made available to treat PsA and related diseases, and several clinical trials have been published. Sarabia and colleagues reported the results of a meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials including 6757 patients with psoriasis or PsA who received treatment with a JAKi or placebo. Their analyses revealed that treatment with JAKi vs placebo was associated with higher odds of achieving American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (odds ratio [OR] 4.45; 95% CI 3.64-5.44), with similar outcomes observed with tofacitinib vs placebo (OR 2.96; 95% CI 2.01-4.35) and non-tofacitinib JAKi vs placebo (OR 5.41; 95% CI 3.95-7.40). Serious adverse event rates were low (1%-7% in the maximum-dose intervention group).

Interleukin-23i (guselkumab, tildrakizumab, or risankizumab) are another class of biologics recently approved for the treatment of PsA. Preliminary results from a real-world study demonstrate the efficacy of these drugs for PsA. In a retrospective observational study including 80 patients with psoriasis (22 with PsA) who received guselkumab, tildrakizumab, or risankizumab, Elgaard and colleagues demonstrated that 40.9% or 36.4% of the PsA patients achieved complete or partial remission, respectively, compared with only 18.2% of patients with no improvement.

Regarding drug safety, a recent study demonstrated low rates of opportunistic infections with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) and targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). Vassilopoulos and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 47 randomized controlled trials and 26 follow-up extension studies that included patients with PsA who received at least one dose of a bDMARD or a tsDMARD (n = 11,790) or placebo (n = 6425) during the placebo-controlled period, and 17,197 patients who received at least one dose of a bDMARD or a tsDMARD in the long-term extension period.

The cumulative incidence of opportunistic infections was < 3% when stratified by the mechanism of action: JAKi (2.72%; 95% CI 1.05%-5.04%), anti-interleukin (IL)-17i (1.18%; 95% CI 0.60%-1.90%), anti-IL-23i (0.24%; 95% CI 0.04%-0.54%), and TNFi (0.01%; 95% CI 0.00%-0.21%). These results are consistent with my own observations in my clinic. Thus, currently available advanced therapies, including JAKi and IL-23i, are effective and safe for the management of patients with PsA when used as monotherapy with or without conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD). Ongoing studies on combination therapy will provide us with guidance on the efficacy and safety of combining these drugs for the treatment of resistant disease.

Many patients do not respond to treatment, however. Actionable risk factors for lack of response are of clinical interest. One such factor is obesity. In an observational study of 774 adult PsA patients who started their first b/tsDMARD, Vallejo-Yague and colleagues reported that the odds of achieving minimal disease activity (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.45; 95% CI 0.24-0.82) and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA)-remission (aOR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.85) were lower in the obese vs normal-weight group within the first year. Thus, obese patients had ~50% lower likelihood of achieving a state of low disease activity. Comprehensive management of PsA must include management of obesity and other comorbid conditions to achieve optimal outcomes.

Finally, an interesting study by Freuer and colleagues used bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization in 12,882 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 21,770 matched controls, 5621 patients with psoriasis, 2063 patients with PsA, and 252,323 controls. The study found that genetically predicted IBD was associated with a higher risk for PsA (pooled OR 1.11; P = .003) with the risk being majorly mediated by Crohn's disease (OR 1.12; P = .002) and not ulcerative colitis (P = .70). Thus, patients with Crohn's disease need to be carefully evaluated for the development of PsA.

The effectiveness and safety of advanced therapies for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was a focus of many published studies last month. Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are a recent class of drugs made available to treat PsA and related diseases, and several clinical trials have been published. Sarabia and colleagues reported the results of a meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials including 6757 patients with psoriasis or PsA who received treatment with a JAKi or placebo. Their analyses revealed that treatment with JAKi vs placebo was associated with higher odds of achieving American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (odds ratio [OR] 4.45; 95% CI 3.64-5.44), with similar outcomes observed with tofacitinib vs placebo (OR 2.96; 95% CI 2.01-4.35) and non-tofacitinib JAKi vs placebo (OR 5.41; 95% CI 3.95-7.40). Serious adverse event rates were low (1%-7% in the maximum-dose intervention group).

Interleukin-23i (guselkumab, tildrakizumab, or risankizumab) are another class of biologics recently approved for the treatment of PsA. Preliminary results from a real-world study demonstrate the efficacy of these drugs for PsA. In a retrospective observational study including 80 patients with psoriasis (22 with PsA) who received guselkumab, tildrakizumab, or risankizumab, Elgaard and colleagues demonstrated that 40.9% or 36.4% of the PsA patients achieved complete or partial remission, respectively, compared with only 18.2% of patients with no improvement.

Regarding drug safety, a recent study demonstrated low rates of opportunistic infections with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) and targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). Vassilopoulos and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 47 randomized controlled trials and 26 follow-up extension studies that included patients with PsA who received at least one dose of a bDMARD or a tsDMARD (n = 11,790) or placebo (n = 6425) during the placebo-controlled period, and 17,197 patients who received at least one dose of a bDMARD or a tsDMARD in the long-term extension period.

The cumulative incidence of opportunistic infections was < 3% when stratified by the mechanism of action: JAKi (2.72%; 95% CI 1.05%-5.04%), anti-interleukin (IL)-17i (1.18%; 95% CI 0.60%-1.90%), anti-IL-23i (0.24%; 95% CI 0.04%-0.54%), and TNFi (0.01%; 95% CI 0.00%-0.21%). These results are consistent with my own observations in my clinic. Thus, currently available advanced therapies, including JAKi and IL-23i, are effective and safe for the management of patients with PsA when used as monotherapy with or without conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD). Ongoing studies on combination therapy will provide us with guidance on the efficacy and safety of combining these drugs for the treatment of resistant disease.

Many patients do not respond to treatment, however. Actionable risk factors for lack of response are of clinical interest. One such factor is obesity. In an observational study of 774 adult PsA patients who started their first b/tsDMARD, Vallejo-Yague and colleagues reported that the odds of achieving minimal disease activity (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.45; 95% CI 0.24-0.82) and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA)-remission (aOR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.85) were lower in the obese vs normal-weight group within the first year. Thus, obese patients had ~50% lower likelihood of achieving a state of low disease activity. Comprehensive management of PsA must include management of obesity and other comorbid conditions to achieve optimal outcomes.

Finally, an interesting study by Freuer and colleagues used bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization in 12,882 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 21,770 matched controls, 5621 patients with psoriasis, 2063 patients with PsA, and 252,323 controls. The study found that genetically predicted IBD was associated with a higher risk for PsA (pooled OR 1.11; P = .003) with the risk being majorly mediated by Crohn's disease (OR 1.12; P = .002) and not ulcerative colitis (P = .70). Thus, patients with Crohn's disease need to be carefully evaluated for the development of PsA.

Multiple studies have emphasized the potential for severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with rheumatic disease, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Because these studies often group together patients with different diseases, medications, and manifestations, differences in outcomes between patients with these conditions may be difficult to tease out.

Figueroa-Parra and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study comparing people with RA who developed COVID-19 to those who did not have RA to examine the effect of RA characteristics, such as interstitial lung disease (ILD), serostatus, and bone erosions, on COVID-19 outcomes. Patients with RA, particularly those with seropositive RA, bone erosions, and RA-associated ILD, had approximately twofold (or higher) risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as mortality or mechanical ventilation, than did those without RA. However, there was no difference in outcomes seen between patients with RA who were seropositive compared with those who were seronegative, with or without bone erosions, or with or without ILD. The mechanism by which RA phenotypes and their treatment affect this risk remains unclear.

Li and colleagues also looked at COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RA according to vaccination status using a UK primary care database. Among unvaccinated patients, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization or mortality because of COVID-19 were modestly higher in people with RA. Among vaccinated patients, there was no increased risk for breakthrough infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, or mortality observed in patients with RA over 3 or 6 months of follow-up, with a slight increase over 9 months of follow-up. Overall, both studies support prior research suggesting a higher risk for more severe COVID-19 in patients with RA, as well as potential mitigation with vaccination.

Predictors of RA course and severity are of great interest in determining the optimal therapy to reduce joint damage and prevent RA progression while also minimizing the adverse effects of treatment. Early disease course has been shown to be important in several studies. Giollo and colleagues compared patients with "difficult-to-treat RA," ie, RA that is resistant to multiple biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) or targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD), with those without in an inception cohort study and found that early difficult management as well as delay of methotrexate initiation was associated with persistent inflammatory symptoms. This finding does not show a causative relationship between methotrexate and protection from the development of refractory RA but does lend support for early aggressive treatment in patients with a high inflammatory burden.

Conversely, Parisi and colleagues performed a subanalysis of the STARTER study of patients with RA in clinical remission to evaluate the impact of different therapies. The STARTER study had shown an association between ultrasound detection of tenosynovitis and RA flares. Of the more than 250 patients completing the study, ultrasound evidence of tenosynovitis was better controlled in patients on combination bDMARD and conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) therapy than in those on csDMARDs monotherapy, with a trend toward reduction in flares in patients on combination therapy. Given the relatively small effect, it is not clear that combination therapy is associated with deeper remission, but, as suggested in prior studies, ultrasound evidence of tenosynovitis may be worthwhile considering prior to tapering therapy.

Multiple studies have emphasized the potential for severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with rheumatic disease, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Because these studies often group together patients with different diseases, medications, and manifestations, differences in outcomes between patients with these conditions may be difficult to tease out.

Figueroa-Parra and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study comparing people with RA who developed COVID-19 to those who did not have RA to examine the effect of RA characteristics, such as interstitial lung disease (ILD), serostatus, and bone erosions, on COVID-19 outcomes. Patients with RA, particularly those with seropositive RA, bone erosions, and RA-associated ILD, had approximately twofold (or higher) risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as mortality or mechanical ventilation, than did those without RA. However, there was no difference in outcomes seen between patients with RA who were seropositive compared with those who were seronegative, with or without bone erosions, or with or without ILD. The mechanism by which RA phenotypes and their treatment affect this risk remains unclear.

Li and colleagues also looked at COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RA according to vaccination status using a UK primary care database. Among unvaccinated patients, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization or mortality because of COVID-19 were modestly higher in people with RA. Among vaccinated patients, there was no increased risk for breakthrough infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, or mortality observed in patients with RA over 3 or 6 months of follow-up, with a slight increase over 9 months of follow-up. Overall, both studies support prior research suggesting a higher risk for more severe COVID-19 in patients with RA, as well as potential mitigation with vaccination.

Predictors of RA course and severity are of great interest in determining the optimal therapy to reduce joint damage and prevent RA progression while also minimizing the adverse effects of treatment. Early disease course has been shown to be important in several studies. Giollo and colleagues compared patients with "difficult-to-treat RA," ie, RA that is resistant to multiple biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) or targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD), with those without in an inception cohort study and found that early difficult management as well as delay of methotrexate initiation was associated with persistent inflammatory symptoms. This finding does not show a causative relationship between methotrexate and protection from the development of refractory RA but does lend support for early aggressive treatment in patients with a high inflammatory burden.

Conversely, Parisi and colleagues performed a subanalysis of the STARTER study of patients with RA in clinical remission to evaluate the impact of different therapies. The STARTER study had shown an association between ultrasound detection of tenosynovitis and RA flares. Of the more than 250 patients completing the study, ultrasound evidence of tenosynovitis was better controlled in patients on combination bDMARD and conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) therapy than in those on csDMARDs monotherapy, with a trend toward reduction in flares in patients on combination therapy. Given the relatively small effect, it is not clear that combination therapy is associated with deeper remission, but, as suggested in prior studies, ultrasound evidence of tenosynovitis may be worthwhile considering prior to tapering therapy.

Multiple studies have emphasized the potential for severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with rheumatic disease, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Because these studies often group together patients with different diseases, medications, and manifestations, differences in outcomes between patients with these conditions may be difficult to tease out.

Figueroa-Parra and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study comparing people with RA who developed COVID-19 to those who did not have RA to examine the effect of RA characteristics, such as interstitial lung disease (ILD), serostatus, and bone erosions, on COVID-19 outcomes. Patients with RA, particularly those with seropositive RA, bone erosions, and RA-associated ILD, had approximately twofold (or higher) risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as mortality or mechanical ventilation, than did those without RA. However, there was no difference in outcomes seen between patients with RA who were seropositive compared with those who were seronegative, with or without bone erosions, or with or without ILD. The mechanism by which RA phenotypes and their treatment affect this risk remains unclear.

Li and colleagues also looked at COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RA according to vaccination status using a UK primary care database. Among unvaccinated patients, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization or mortality because of COVID-19 were modestly higher in people with RA. Among vaccinated patients, there was no increased risk for breakthrough infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, or mortality observed in patients with RA over 3 or 6 months of follow-up, with a slight increase over 9 months of follow-up. Overall, both studies support prior research suggesting a higher risk for more severe COVID-19 in patients with RA, as well as potential mitigation with vaccination.

Predictors of RA course and severity are of great interest in determining the optimal therapy to reduce joint damage and prevent RA progression while also minimizing the adverse effects of treatment. Early disease course has been shown to be important in several studies. Giollo and colleagues compared patients with "difficult-to-treat RA," ie, RA that is resistant to multiple biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) or targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD), with those without in an inception cohort study and found that early difficult management as well as delay of methotrexate initiation was associated with persistent inflammatory symptoms. This finding does not show a causative relationship between methotrexate and protection from the development of refractory RA but does lend support for early aggressive treatment in patients with a high inflammatory burden.

Conversely, Parisi and colleagues performed a subanalysis of the STARTER study of patients with RA in clinical remission to evaluate the impact of different therapies. The STARTER study had shown an association between ultrasound detection of tenosynovitis and RA flares. Of the more than 250 patients completing the study, ultrasound evidence of tenosynovitis was better controlled in patients on combination bDMARD and conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) therapy than in those on csDMARDs monotherapy, with a trend toward reduction in flares in patients on combination therapy. Given the relatively small effect, it is not clear that combination therapy is associated with deeper remission, but, as suggested in prior studies, ultrasound evidence of tenosynovitis may be worthwhile considering prior to tapering therapy.

As an undergraduate student at Northeastern University in Boston, Meghan Chin spent her summers working for a day program in Rhode Island. Her charges were adults with various forms of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

“I was very much a caretaker,” Ms. Chin, now 29, said. “It was everything from helping them get dressed in the morning to getting them to medical appointments.”

During one such visit Ms. Chin got a lesson about how health care looks from the viewpoint of someone with an IDD.

The patient was a woman in her 60s and she was having gastrointestinal issues; symptoms she could have articulated, if asked. “She was perfectly capable of telling a clinician where it hurt, how long she had experienced the problem, and what she had done or not done to alleviate it,” Ms. Chin said.

And of comprehending a response. But she was not given the opportunity.

“She would explain what was going on to the clinician,” Ms. Chin recalled. “And the clinician would turn to me and answer. It was this weird three-way conversation – as if she wasn’t even there in the room with us.”

Ms. Chin was incensed at the rude and disrespectful way the patient had been treated. But her charge didn’t seem upset or surprised. Just resigned. “Sadly, she had become used to this,” Ms. Chin said. 

For the young aide, however, the experience was searing. “It didn’t seem right to me,” Ms. Chin said. “That’s why, when I went to medical school, I knew I wanted to do better for this population.”

Serendipity led her to Georgetown University, Washington, where she met Kim Bullock, MD, one of the country’s leading advocates for improved health care delivery to those with IDDs.

Dr. Bullock, an associate professor of family medicine, seeks to create better training and educational opportunities for medical students who will likely encounter patients with these disabilities in their practices.

When Dr. Bullock heard Ms. Chin’s story about the patient being ignored, she was not surprised.

“This is not an unusual or unique situation,” said Dr. Bullock, who is also director of Georgetown’s community health division and a faculty member of the university’s Center for Excellence for Developmental Disabilities. “In fact, it’s quite common and is part of what spurred my own interest in educating pre-med and medical students about effective communication techniques, particularly when addressing neurodiverse patients.”

More than 13% of Americans, or roughly 44 million people, have some form of disability, according to the National Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire, a figure that does not include those who are institutionalized. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 17% of children aged 3-17 years have a developmental disability.

Even so, many physicians feel ill-prepared to care for disabled patients. A survey of physicians, published in the journal Health Affairs, found that some lacked the resources and training to properly care for patients with disabilities, or that they struggled to coordinate care for such individuals. Some said they did not know which types of accessible equipment, like adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them. And some said they actively try to avoid treating patients with disabilities.
 

Don’t assume

The first step at correcting the problem, Dr. Bullock said, is to not assume that all IDD patients are incapable of communicating. By talking not to the patient but to their caregiver or spouse or child, as the clinician did with Ms. Chin years ago, “we are taking away their agency, their autonomy to speak for and about themselves.”

Change involves altering physicians’ attitudes and assumptions toward this population, through education. But how?

“The medical school curriculum is tight as it is,” Dr. Bullock acknowledged. “There’s a lot of things students have to learn. People wonder: where we will add this?”

Her suggestion: Incorporate IDD all along the way, through programs or experiences that will enable medical students to see such patients “not as something separate, but as people that have special needs just as other populations have.”

Case in point: Operation House Call, a program in Massachusetts designed to support young health care professionals, by building “confidence, interest, and sensitivity” toward individuals with IDD.

Eight medical and allied health schools, including those at Harvard Medical School and Yale School of Nursing, participate in the program, the centerpiece of which is time spent by teams of medical students in the homes of families with neurodiverse members. “It’s transformational,” said Susan Feeney, DNP, NP-C, director of adult gerontology and family nurse practitioner programs at the graduate school of nursing at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “They spend a few hours at the homes of these families, have this interaction with them, and journal about their experiences.”

Dr. Feeney described as “transformational” the experience of the students after getting to know these families. “They all come back profoundly changed,” she told this news organization. “As a medical or health care professional, you meet people in an artificial environment of the clinic and hospital. Here, they become human, like you. It takes the stigma away.”

One area of medicine in which this is an exception is pediatrics, where interaction with children with IDD and their families is common – and close. “They’re going to be much more attuned to this,” Dr. Feeney said. “The problem is primary care or internal medicine. Once these children get into their mid and later 20s, and they need a practitioner to talk to about adult concerns.”

And with adulthood come other medical needs, as the physical demands of age fall no less heavily on individuals with IDDs than those without. For example: “Neurodiverse people get pregnant,” Dr. Bullock said. They also can get heart disease as they age; or require the care of a rheumatologist, a neurologist, an orthopedic surgeon, or any other medical specialty.

Generation gap

Fortunately, the next generation of physicians may be more open to this more inclusionary approach toward a widely misunderstood population.

Like Ms. Chin, Sarah Bdeir had experience with this population prior to beginning her training in medicine. She had volunteered at a school for people with IDD.

“It was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had,” Ms. Bdeir, now 23 and a first-year medical student at Wayne State University, Detroit, said. She found that the neurodiverse individuals she worked with had as many abilities as disabilities. “They are capable of learning, but they do it differently,” she said. “You have to adjust to the way they learn. And you have to step out of your own box.”

Ms. Bdeir also heard about Dr. Bullock’s work and is assisting her in a research project on how to better improve nutritional education for people with IDDs. And although she said it may take time for curriculum boards at medical schools to integrate this kind of training into their programs, she believes they will, in part because the rising cohort of medical students today have an eagerness to engage with and learn more about IDD patients.

As does Ms. Chin.

“When I talk to my peers about this, they’re very receptive,” Ms. Chin said. “They want to learn how to better support the IDD population. And they will learn. I believe in my generation of future doctors.”

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

As an undergraduate student at Northeastern University in Boston, Meghan Chin spent her summers working for a day program in Rhode Island. Her charges were adults with various forms of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

“I was very much a caretaker,” Ms. Chin, now 29, said. “It was everything from helping them get dressed in the morning to getting them to medical appointments.”

During one such visit Ms. Chin got a lesson about how health care looks from the viewpoint of someone with an IDD.

The patient was a woman in her 60s and she was having gastrointestinal issues; symptoms she could have articulated, if asked. “She was perfectly capable of telling a clinician where it hurt, how long she had experienced the problem, and what she had done or not done to alleviate it,” Ms. Chin said.

And of comprehending a response. But she was not given the opportunity.

“She would explain what was going on to the clinician,” Ms. Chin recalled. “And the clinician would turn to me and answer. It was this weird three-way conversation – as if she wasn’t even there in the room with us.”

Ms. Chin was incensed at the rude and disrespectful way the patient had been treated. But her charge didn’t seem upset or surprised. Just resigned. “Sadly, she had become used to this,” Ms. Chin said. 

For the young aide, however, the experience was searing. “It didn’t seem right to me,” Ms. Chin said. “That’s why, when I went to medical school, I knew I wanted to do better for this population.”

Serendipity led her to Georgetown University, Washington, where she met Kim Bullock, MD, one of the country’s leading advocates for improved health care delivery to those with IDDs.

Dr. Bullock, an associate professor of family medicine, seeks to create better training and educational opportunities for medical students who will likely encounter patients with these disabilities in their practices.

When Dr. Bullock heard Ms. Chin’s story about the patient being ignored, she was not surprised.

“This is not an unusual or unique situation,” said Dr. Bullock, who is also director of Georgetown’s community health division and a faculty member of the university’s Center for Excellence for Developmental Disabilities. “In fact, it’s quite common and is part of what spurred my own interest in educating pre-med and medical students about effective communication techniques, particularly when addressing neurodiverse patients.”

More than 13% of Americans, or roughly 44 million people, have some form of disability, according to the National Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire, a figure that does not include those who are institutionalized. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 17% of children aged 3-17 years have a developmental disability.

Even so, many physicians feel ill-prepared to care for disabled patients. A survey of physicians, published in the journal Health Affairs, found that some lacked the resources and training to properly care for patients with disabilities, or that they struggled to coordinate care for such individuals. Some said they did not know which types of accessible equipment, like adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them. And some said they actively try to avoid treating patients with disabilities.
 

Don’t assume

The first step at correcting the problem, Dr. Bullock said, is to not assume that all IDD patients are incapable of communicating. By talking not to the patient but to their caregiver or spouse or child, as the clinician did with Ms. Chin years ago, “we are taking away their agency, their autonomy to speak for and about themselves.”

Change involves altering physicians’ attitudes and assumptions toward this population, through education. But how?

“The medical school curriculum is tight as it is,” Dr. Bullock acknowledged. “There’s a lot of things students have to learn. People wonder: where we will add this?”

Her suggestion: Incorporate IDD all along the way, through programs or experiences that will enable medical students to see such patients “not as something separate, but as people that have special needs just as other populations have.”

Case in point: Operation House Call, a program in Massachusetts designed to support young health care professionals, by building “confidence, interest, and sensitivity” toward individuals with IDD.

Eight medical and allied health schools, including those at Harvard Medical School and Yale School of Nursing, participate in the program, the centerpiece of which is time spent by teams of medical students in the homes of families with neurodiverse members. “It’s transformational,” said Susan Feeney, DNP, NP-C, director of adult gerontology and family nurse practitioner programs at the graduate school of nursing at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “They spend a few hours at the homes of these families, have this interaction with them, and journal about their experiences.”

Dr. Feeney described as “transformational” the experience of the students after getting to know these families. “They all come back profoundly changed,” she told this news organization. “As a medical or health care professional, you meet people in an artificial environment of the clinic and hospital. Here, they become human, like you. It takes the stigma away.”

One area of medicine in which this is an exception is pediatrics, where interaction with children with IDD and their families is common – and close. “They’re going to be much more attuned to this,” Dr. Feeney said. “The problem is primary care or internal medicine. Once these children get into their mid and later 20s, and they need a practitioner to talk to about adult concerns.”

And with adulthood come other medical needs, as the physical demands of age fall no less heavily on individuals with IDDs than those without. For example: “Neurodiverse people get pregnant,” Dr. Bullock said. They also can get heart disease as they age; or require the care of a rheumatologist, a neurologist, an orthopedic surgeon, or any other medical specialty.

Generation gap

Fortunately, the next generation of physicians may be more open to this more inclusionary approach toward a widely misunderstood population.

Like Ms. Chin, Sarah Bdeir had experience with this population prior to beginning her training in medicine. She had volunteered at a school for people with IDD.

“It was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had,” Ms. Bdeir, now 23 and a first-year medical student at Wayne State University, Detroit, said. She found that the neurodiverse individuals she worked with had as many abilities as disabilities. “They are capable of learning, but they do it differently,” she said. “You have to adjust to the way they learn. And you have to step out of your own box.”

Ms. Bdeir also heard about Dr. Bullock’s work and is assisting her in a research project on how to better improve nutritional education for people with IDDs. And although she said it may take time for curriculum boards at medical schools to integrate this kind of training into their programs, she believes they will, in part because the rising cohort of medical students today have an eagerness to engage with and learn more about IDD patients.

As does Ms. Chin.

“When I talk to my peers about this, they’re very receptive,” Ms. Chin said. “They want to learn how to better support the IDD population. And they will learn. I believe in my generation of future doctors.”

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

As an undergraduate student at Northeastern University in Boston, Meghan Chin spent her summers working for a day program in Rhode Island. Her charges were adults with various forms of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

“I was very much a caretaker,” Ms. Chin, now 29, said. “It was everything from helping them get dressed in the morning to getting them to medical appointments.”

During one such visit Ms. Chin got a lesson about how health care looks from the viewpoint of someone with an IDD.

The patient was a woman in her 60s and she was having gastrointestinal issues; symptoms she could have articulated, if asked. “She was perfectly capable of telling a clinician where it hurt, how long she had experienced the problem, and what she had done or not done to alleviate it,” Ms. Chin said.

And of comprehending a response. But she was not given the opportunity.

“She would explain what was going on to the clinician,” Ms. Chin recalled. “And the clinician would turn to me and answer. It was this weird three-way conversation – as if she wasn’t even there in the room with us.”

Ms. Chin was incensed at the rude and disrespectful way the patient had been treated. But her charge didn’t seem upset or surprised. Just resigned. “Sadly, she had become used to this,” Ms. Chin said. 

For the young aide, however, the experience was searing. “It didn’t seem right to me,” Ms. Chin said. “That’s why, when I went to medical school, I knew I wanted to do better for this population.”

Serendipity led her to Georgetown University, Washington, where she met Kim Bullock, MD, one of the country’s leading advocates for improved health care delivery to those with IDDs.

Dr. Bullock, an associate professor of family medicine, seeks to create better training and educational opportunities for medical students who will likely encounter patients with these disabilities in their practices.

When Dr. Bullock heard Ms. Chin’s story about the patient being ignored, she was not surprised.

“This is not an unusual or unique situation,” said Dr. Bullock, who is also director of Georgetown’s community health division and a faculty member of the university’s Center for Excellence for Developmental Disabilities. “In fact, it’s quite common and is part of what spurred my own interest in educating pre-med and medical students about effective communication techniques, particularly when addressing neurodiverse patients.”

More than 13% of Americans, or roughly 44 million people, have some form of disability, according to the National Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire, a figure that does not include those who are institutionalized. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 17% of children aged 3-17 years have a developmental disability.

Even so, many physicians feel ill-prepared to care for disabled patients. A survey of physicians, published in the journal Health Affairs, found that some lacked the resources and training to properly care for patients with disabilities, or that they struggled to coordinate care for such individuals. Some said they did not know which types of accessible equipment, like adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them. And some said they actively try to avoid treating patients with disabilities.
 

Don’t assume

The first step at correcting the problem, Dr. Bullock said, is to not assume that all IDD patients are incapable of communicating. By talking not to the patient but to their caregiver or spouse or child, as the clinician did with Ms. Chin years ago, “we are taking away their agency, their autonomy to speak for and about themselves.”

Change involves altering physicians’ attitudes and assumptions toward this population, through education. But how?

“The medical school curriculum is tight as it is,” Dr. Bullock acknowledged. “There’s a lot of things students have to learn. People wonder: where we will add this?”

Her suggestion: Incorporate IDD all along the way, through programs or experiences that will enable medical students to see such patients “not as something separate, but as people that have special needs just as other populations have.”

Case in point: Operation House Call, a program in Massachusetts designed to support young health care professionals, by building “confidence, interest, and sensitivity” toward individuals with IDD.

Eight medical and allied health schools, including those at Harvard Medical School and Yale School of Nursing, participate in the program, the centerpiece of which is time spent by teams of medical students in the homes of families with neurodiverse members. “It’s transformational,” said Susan Feeney, DNP, NP-C, director of adult gerontology and family nurse practitioner programs at the graduate school of nursing at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “They spend a few hours at the homes of these families, have this interaction with them, and journal about their experiences.”

Dr. Feeney described as “transformational” the experience of the students after getting to know these families. “They all come back profoundly changed,” she told this news organization. “As a medical or health care professional, you meet people in an artificial environment of the clinic and hospital. Here, they become human, like you. It takes the stigma away.”

One area of medicine in which this is an exception is pediatrics, where interaction with children with IDD and their families is common – and close. “They’re going to be much more attuned to this,” Dr. Feeney said. “The problem is primary care or internal medicine. Once these children get into their mid and later 20s, and they need a practitioner to talk to about adult concerns.”

And with adulthood come other medical needs, as the physical demands of age fall no less heavily on individuals with IDDs than those without. For example: “Neurodiverse people get pregnant,” Dr. Bullock said. They also can get heart disease as they age; or require the care of a rheumatologist, a neurologist, an orthopedic surgeon, or any other medical specialty.

Generation gap

Fortunately, the next generation of physicians may be more open to this more inclusionary approach toward a widely misunderstood population.

Like Ms. Chin, Sarah Bdeir had experience with this population prior to beginning her training in medicine. She had volunteered at a school for people with IDD.

“It was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had,” Ms. Bdeir, now 23 and a first-year medical student at Wayne State University, Detroit, said. She found that the neurodiverse individuals she worked with had as many abilities as disabilities. “They are capable of learning, but they do it differently,” she said. “You have to adjust to the way they learn. And you have to step out of your own box.”

Ms. Bdeir also heard about Dr. Bullock’s work and is assisting her in a research project on how to better improve nutritional education for people with IDDs. And although she said it may take time for curriculum boards at medical schools to integrate this kind of training into their programs, she believes they will, in part because the rising cohort of medical students today have an eagerness to engage with and learn more about IDD patients.

As does Ms. Chin.

“When I talk to my peers about this, they’re very receptive,” Ms. Chin said. “They want to learn how to better support the IDD population. And they will learn. I believe in my generation of future doctors.”

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