MDedge Rheumatology

Patients with iron overload – serum ferritin greater than 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnosis of hemochromatosis or thalassemia – were 60% more likely to have an osteoporotic fracture during an up to 10-year follow-up than matched control patients, in a large study.

Compared with control patients, those with iron overload had a roughly twofold increased risk of a vertebral fracture, as well as an increased risk of a hip or humerus fracture, but not a forearm fracture.

The increased risk of fracture in men with iron overload (compared with other matched men) was greater than the increased risk of fracture in women with iron overload (compared with other matched women).

Andrea Burden, PhD, presented the findings during a late-breaking clinical science session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.
 

‘We should worry about the bones as well as the liver’

Based on these results, clinicians should probably do earlier bone mineral density (BMD) determinations to screen for osteoporosis and perhaps consider prophylaxis with vitamin D and calcium, said Dr. Burden, assistant professor, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zürich.

“However, I say that with a bunch of caution,” she added, “because we actually don’t have much evidence of the impact of these treatment differences on fracture risk.”

“This is the first large population study on this topic,” although there have been a few case reports, Dr. Burden explained in an interview.

However, “the high iron overload of greater than 1,000 mcg/L is not common, and hereditary hemochromatosis or thalassemia also are very rare,” she noted.

“The study shows that, once patients have an iron overload of more than 1,000 mcg/L, we need to be doing regular checks for their BMD and figuring how to best minimize their fracture risk,” she said.

“A twofold risk for a vertebral fracture” in patients with iron overload “is really high,” she noted. It is known that men with iron overload have loss of testosterone, but it may be less well known that they have an increased fracture risk.

“We worry about the liver,” she said, “not so much about the bones, and this shows us that we really should.”

Session comoderator Michael J. Econs, MD, who was not involved with the research, agreed. “Iron overload does occur, and it is a clinically important problem and can lead to hemochromatosis, which can lead to a whole host of diseases, but the most common is liver disease,” he told this news organization.

“So, it is a clinically important problem, not only in people who are genetically predisposed but in people who get frequent transfusion,” said Dr. Econs, distinguished professor of medicine and medical and molecular genetics at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Now this new study has found an increase in fractures in such people, he noted.
 

Large case-control study used U.K. database

Using data from the IQVIA Medical Research Database, researchers identified 21,166 iron overload patients aged 18 years and older who saw a general practitioner in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2020 and had a serum ferritin level above 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnostic code for hemochromatosis or nonanemic thalassemia.

They matched each iron overload patient with up to 10 control patients based on age, sex, year, and general practitioner, for a total of 198,037 control patients.

Patients were a mean age of 59 years and 59% were men.

During follow-up there were 777 fractures in the iron-overload patients (9.61 fractures per 1,000 patient-years) and 4,344 fractures in the control group (4.68 fractures per 1,000 patient-years).

In adjusted hazard ratio models, researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, alcohol, smoking, history of fractures earlier than 365 days prior to study entry, hypogonadism, osteoporosis, medications, and comorbidities.

Overall, patients in the iron overload group had a 60% higher risk of an osteoporotic fracture (aHR, 1.60).

Among women, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 12.63 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 7.09 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.

Women with iron overload had a 48% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other women (aHR, 1.48).

Among men, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 6.71 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 3.01 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.

Men with iron overload therefore had an 82% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other men (aHR, 1.82).

Compared with patients without iron overload, patients with iron overload had an increased risk of a vertebral (aHR, 2.18), hip (aHR, 1.60), and humerus (aHR, 1.82) fracture but not a forearm fracture.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include they did not look at phlebotomy or changes in ferritin levels, and they excluded patients with hereditary hemochromatosis diagnosed before age 18.

The work was funded by the German Research Foundation. One of the researchers has reported receiving an independent grant from Pharmacosmos. The other researchers as well as Dr. Econs have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with iron overload – serum ferritin greater than 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnosis of hemochromatosis or thalassemia – were 60% more likely to have an osteoporotic fracture during an up to 10-year follow-up than matched control patients, in a large study.

Compared with control patients, those with iron overload had a roughly twofold increased risk of a vertebral fracture, as well as an increased risk of a hip or humerus fracture, but not a forearm fracture.

The increased risk of fracture in men with iron overload (compared with other matched men) was greater than the increased risk of fracture in women with iron overload (compared with other matched women).

Andrea Burden, PhD, presented the findings during a late-breaking clinical science session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.
 

‘We should worry about the bones as well as the liver’

Based on these results, clinicians should probably do earlier bone mineral density (BMD) determinations to screen for osteoporosis and perhaps consider prophylaxis with vitamin D and calcium, said Dr. Burden, assistant professor, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zürich.

“However, I say that with a bunch of caution,” she added, “because we actually don’t have much evidence of the impact of these treatment differences on fracture risk.”

“This is the first large population study on this topic,” although there have been a few case reports, Dr. Burden explained in an interview.

However, “the high iron overload of greater than 1,000 mcg/L is not common, and hereditary hemochromatosis or thalassemia also are very rare,” she noted.

“The study shows that, once patients have an iron overload of more than 1,000 mcg/L, we need to be doing regular checks for their BMD and figuring how to best minimize their fracture risk,” she said.

“A twofold risk for a vertebral fracture” in patients with iron overload “is really high,” she noted. It is known that men with iron overload have loss of testosterone, but it may be less well known that they have an increased fracture risk.

“We worry about the liver,” she said, “not so much about the bones, and this shows us that we really should.”

Session comoderator Michael J. Econs, MD, who was not involved with the research, agreed. “Iron overload does occur, and it is a clinically important problem and can lead to hemochromatosis, which can lead to a whole host of diseases, but the most common is liver disease,” he told this news organization.

“So, it is a clinically important problem, not only in people who are genetically predisposed but in people who get frequent transfusion,” said Dr. Econs, distinguished professor of medicine and medical and molecular genetics at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Now this new study has found an increase in fractures in such people, he noted.
 

Large case-control study used U.K. database

Using data from the IQVIA Medical Research Database, researchers identified 21,166 iron overload patients aged 18 years and older who saw a general practitioner in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2020 and had a serum ferritin level above 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnostic code for hemochromatosis or nonanemic thalassemia.

They matched each iron overload patient with up to 10 control patients based on age, sex, year, and general practitioner, for a total of 198,037 control patients.

Patients were a mean age of 59 years and 59% were men.

During follow-up there were 777 fractures in the iron-overload patients (9.61 fractures per 1,000 patient-years) and 4,344 fractures in the control group (4.68 fractures per 1,000 patient-years).

In adjusted hazard ratio models, researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, alcohol, smoking, history of fractures earlier than 365 days prior to study entry, hypogonadism, osteoporosis, medications, and comorbidities.

Overall, patients in the iron overload group had a 60% higher risk of an osteoporotic fracture (aHR, 1.60).

Among women, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 12.63 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 7.09 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.

Women with iron overload had a 48% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other women (aHR, 1.48).

Among men, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 6.71 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 3.01 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.

Men with iron overload therefore had an 82% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other men (aHR, 1.82).

Compared with patients without iron overload, patients with iron overload had an increased risk of a vertebral (aHR, 2.18), hip (aHR, 1.60), and humerus (aHR, 1.82) fracture but not a forearm fracture.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include they did not look at phlebotomy or changes in ferritin levels, and they excluded patients with hereditary hemochromatosis diagnosed before age 18.

The work was funded by the German Research Foundation. One of the researchers has reported receiving an independent grant from Pharmacosmos. The other researchers as well as Dr. Econs have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with iron overload – serum ferritin greater than 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnosis of hemochromatosis or thalassemia – were 60% more likely to have an osteoporotic fracture during an up to 10-year follow-up than matched control patients, in a large study.

Compared with control patients, those with iron overload had a roughly twofold increased risk of a vertebral fracture, as well as an increased risk of a hip or humerus fracture, but not a forearm fracture.

The increased risk of fracture in men with iron overload (compared with other matched men) was greater than the increased risk of fracture in women with iron overload (compared with other matched women).

Andrea Burden, PhD, presented the findings during a late-breaking clinical science session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.
 

‘We should worry about the bones as well as the liver’

Based on these results, clinicians should probably do earlier bone mineral density (BMD) determinations to screen for osteoporosis and perhaps consider prophylaxis with vitamin D and calcium, said Dr. Burden, assistant professor, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zürich.

“However, I say that with a bunch of caution,” she added, “because we actually don’t have much evidence of the impact of these treatment differences on fracture risk.”

“This is the first large population study on this topic,” although there have been a few case reports, Dr. Burden explained in an interview.

However, “the high iron overload of greater than 1,000 mcg/L is not common, and hereditary hemochromatosis or thalassemia also are very rare,” she noted.

“The study shows that, once patients have an iron overload of more than 1,000 mcg/L, we need to be doing regular checks for their BMD and figuring how to best minimize their fracture risk,” she said.

“A twofold risk for a vertebral fracture” in patients with iron overload “is really high,” she noted. It is known that men with iron overload have loss of testosterone, but it may be less well known that they have an increased fracture risk.

“We worry about the liver,” she said, “not so much about the bones, and this shows us that we really should.”

Session comoderator Michael J. Econs, MD, who was not involved with the research, agreed. “Iron overload does occur, and it is a clinically important problem and can lead to hemochromatosis, which can lead to a whole host of diseases, but the most common is liver disease,” he told this news organization.

“So, it is a clinically important problem, not only in people who are genetically predisposed but in people who get frequent transfusion,” said Dr. Econs, distinguished professor of medicine and medical and molecular genetics at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Now this new study has found an increase in fractures in such people, he noted.
 

Large case-control study used U.K. database

Using data from the IQVIA Medical Research Database, researchers identified 21,166 iron overload patients aged 18 years and older who saw a general practitioner in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2020 and had a serum ferritin level above 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnostic code for hemochromatosis or nonanemic thalassemia.

They matched each iron overload patient with up to 10 control patients based on age, sex, year, and general practitioner, for a total of 198,037 control patients.

Patients were a mean age of 59 years and 59% were men.

During follow-up there were 777 fractures in the iron-overload patients (9.61 fractures per 1,000 patient-years) and 4,344 fractures in the control group (4.68 fractures per 1,000 patient-years).

In adjusted hazard ratio models, researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, alcohol, smoking, history of fractures earlier than 365 days prior to study entry, hypogonadism, osteoporosis, medications, and comorbidities.

Overall, patients in the iron overload group had a 60% higher risk of an osteoporotic fracture (aHR, 1.60).

Among women, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 12.63 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 7.09 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.

Women with iron overload had a 48% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other women (aHR, 1.48).

Among men, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 6.71 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 3.01 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.

Men with iron overload therefore had an 82% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other men (aHR, 1.82).

Compared with patients without iron overload, patients with iron overload had an increased risk of a vertebral (aHR, 2.18), hip (aHR, 1.60), and humerus (aHR, 1.82) fracture but not a forearm fracture.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include they did not look at phlebotomy or changes in ferritin levels, and they excluded patients with hereditary hemochromatosis diagnosed before age 18.

The work was funded by the German Research Foundation. One of the researchers has reported receiving an independent grant from Pharmacosmos. The other researchers as well as Dr. Econs have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Apremilast (Otezla), an oral drug approved for adult psoriasis, appears to reduce psoriasis severity in some children with moderate to severe psoriasis not controlled by topical therapy, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.

“Unfortunately, there are limited treatment options for pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis” who do not respond to or cannot use topical therapy, said study investigator Anna Belloni Fortina, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, oral apremilast demonstrated effectiveness and was well tolerated,” added Dr. Belloni Fortina, of Azienda Ospedale Università Padova (Italy). “I underline oral because for children, oral administration is better than the injection treatment.”
 

Key findings

Dubbed the SPROUT study, the trial set a primary endpoint of the percentage of children with a Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) response after 16 weeks of treatment or placebo. The sPGA is a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe). The study enrolled children with an sPGA greater than or equal to 3. Response was defined as a sPGA score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin, with at least a 2-point reduction from baseline values.

At week 16, the primary endpoint was met by 33% of 163 children treated with apremilast versus 11% of 82 children who had been given a placebo, a treatment difference of 21.7% (95% confidence interval, 11.2%-32.1%).

A greater proportion of children treated with apremilast also achieved a major secondary endpoint, a 75% or greater reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) (45.4% vs. 16.1%), a treatment difference of 29.4% (95% CI, 17.8%-40.9%).
 

Results unaffected by weight and age

Regarding apremilast, “it’s important to underline that patients were dosed according to their weight,” Dr. Belloni Fortina said.

A dose of 20 mg twice daily was given to children who weighed between 20 kg and less than 50 kg, and a 30-mg twice-daily dose was given to those who weighed greater than or equal to 50 kg.

When the data were analyzed according to weight, proportionately more children on apremilast saw a sPGA response: 47.4% versus 21.8% in the lower weight and dose range and 19.2% versus 1.6% in the higher weight and dose range.

As for PASI-75, a greater proportion of children on apremilast also responded in both the lower and upper weight ranges, a respective 52.4% and 38.7% of patients, compared with 21.4% and 11% of those treated with placebo.

Data were also evaluated according to age, with a younger (aged 6-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) group. The mean age of children was 12 years overall. Results showed a similar pattern for weight: The psoriasis of more children treated with apremilast was reduced by both measures, sPGA response, and PASI-75.
 

Safety of apremilast in children

“The overall safety profile during the placebo-controlled phase was comparable with the known safety profile of apremilast,” Dr. Belloni Fontina reported. “No new safety signals were identified.”

The rate of any adverse event was substantially higher in children given the active treatment, however, at 65% versus 41.3% for placebo.

Rates of severe and serious adverse events were low, at around 1.3%, and similar between the groups.

There was also a low rate of withdrawal because of side effects, although this was higher in the apremilast group (3.1% vs. 1.3%).

The primary reason for withdrawal of apremilast treatment were the most commonly reported adverse events: gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhea, nausea, upper and lower abdominal pain, and vomiting. Headache, pyrexia, and nasopharyngitis were also reported.

Despite being common, most treatment-related adverse effects resolved within 3 days, Dr. Belloni Fontina said.
 

Expect further data

Further data from the trial are to be expected, because only the 16-week primary endpoint results have been released so far. The trial also included a 36-week extension phase, during which all children who had originally been randomly assigned to placebo were now eligible to be treated with apremilast, and all those who were originally given the active treatment were able to continue. This extension treatment period means that data will be available for a full year of treatment, and there will also be a further 2-week observational follow-up at the end of the trial.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Belloni Fontina reported acting as an investigator and advisory board member for and receiving honoraria from Amgen, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. She also reported speaking on behalf of Pierre-Fabre and Galderma.

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

Apremilast (Otezla), an oral drug approved for adult psoriasis, appears to reduce psoriasis severity in some children with moderate to severe psoriasis not controlled by topical therapy, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.

“Unfortunately, there are limited treatment options for pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis” who do not respond to or cannot use topical therapy, said study investigator Anna Belloni Fortina, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, oral apremilast demonstrated effectiveness and was well tolerated,” added Dr. Belloni Fortina, of Azienda Ospedale Università Padova (Italy). “I underline oral because for children, oral administration is better than the injection treatment.”
 

Key findings

Dubbed the SPROUT study, the trial set a primary endpoint of the percentage of children with a Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) response after 16 weeks of treatment or placebo. The sPGA is a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe). The study enrolled children with an sPGA greater than or equal to 3. Response was defined as a sPGA score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin, with at least a 2-point reduction from baseline values.

At week 16, the primary endpoint was met by 33% of 163 children treated with apremilast versus 11% of 82 children who had been given a placebo, a treatment difference of 21.7% (95% confidence interval, 11.2%-32.1%).

A greater proportion of children treated with apremilast also achieved a major secondary endpoint, a 75% or greater reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) (45.4% vs. 16.1%), a treatment difference of 29.4% (95% CI, 17.8%-40.9%).
 

Results unaffected by weight and age

Regarding apremilast, “it’s important to underline that patients were dosed according to their weight,” Dr. Belloni Fortina said.

A dose of 20 mg twice daily was given to children who weighed between 20 kg and less than 50 kg, and a 30-mg twice-daily dose was given to those who weighed greater than or equal to 50 kg.

When the data were analyzed according to weight, proportionately more children on apremilast saw a sPGA response: 47.4% versus 21.8% in the lower weight and dose range and 19.2% versus 1.6% in the higher weight and dose range.

As for PASI-75, a greater proportion of children on apremilast also responded in both the lower and upper weight ranges, a respective 52.4% and 38.7% of patients, compared with 21.4% and 11% of those treated with placebo.

Data were also evaluated according to age, with a younger (aged 6-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) group. The mean age of children was 12 years overall. Results showed a similar pattern for weight: The psoriasis of more children treated with apremilast was reduced by both measures, sPGA response, and PASI-75.
 

Safety of apremilast in children

“The overall safety profile during the placebo-controlled phase was comparable with the known safety profile of apremilast,” Dr. Belloni Fontina reported. “No new safety signals were identified.”

The rate of any adverse event was substantially higher in children given the active treatment, however, at 65% versus 41.3% for placebo.

Rates of severe and serious adverse events were low, at around 1.3%, and similar between the groups.

There was also a low rate of withdrawal because of side effects, although this was higher in the apremilast group (3.1% vs. 1.3%).

The primary reason for withdrawal of apremilast treatment were the most commonly reported adverse events: gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhea, nausea, upper and lower abdominal pain, and vomiting. Headache, pyrexia, and nasopharyngitis were also reported.

Despite being common, most treatment-related adverse effects resolved within 3 days, Dr. Belloni Fontina said.
 

Expect further data

Further data from the trial are to be expected, because only the 16-week primary endpoint results have been released so far. The trial also included a 36-week extension phase, during which all children who had originally been randomly assigned to placebo were now eligible to be treated with apremilast, and all those who were originally given the active treatment were able to continue. This extension treatment period means that data will be available for a full year of treatment, and there will also be a further 2-week observational follow-up at the end of the trial.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Belloni Fontina reported acting as an investigator and advisory board member for and receiving honoraria from Amgen, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. She also reported speaking on behalf of Pierre-Fabre and Galderma.

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

Apremilast (Otezla), an oral drug approved for adult psoriasis, appears to reduce psoriasis severity in some children with moderate to severe psoriasis not controlled by topical therapy, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.

“Unfortunately, there are limited treatment options for pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis” who do not respond to or cannot use topical therapy, said study investigator Anna Belloni Fortina, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, oral apremilast demonstrated effectiveness and was well tolerated,” added Dr. Belloni Fortina, of Azienda Ospedale Università Padova (Italy). “I underline oral because for children, oral administration is better than the injection treatment.”
 

Key findings

Dubbed the SPROUT study, the trial set a primary endpoint of the percentage of children with a Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) response after 16 weeks of treatment or placebo. The sPGA is a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe). The study enrolled children with an sPGA greater than or equal to 3. Response was defined as a sPGA score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin, with at least a 2-point reduction from baseline values.

At week 16, the primary endpoint was met by 33% of 163 children treated with apremilast versus 11% of 82 children who had been given a placebo, a treatment difference of 21.7% (95% confidence interval, 11.2%-32.1%).

A greater proportion of children treated with apremilast also achieved a major secondary endpoint, a 75% or greater reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) (45.4% vs. 16.1%), a treatment difference of 29.4% (95% CI, 17.8%-40.9%).
 

Results unaffected by weight and age

Regarding apremilast, “it’s important to underline that patients were dosed according to their weight,” Dr. Belloni Fortina said.

A dose of 20 mg twice daily was given to children who weighed between 20 kg and less than 50 kg, and a 30-mg twice-daily dose was given to those who weighed greater than or equal to 50 kg.

When the data were analyzed according to weight, proportionately more children on apremilast saw a sPGA response: 47.4% versus 21.8% in the lower weight and dose range and 19.2% versus 1.6% in the higher weight and dose range.

As for PASI-75, a greater proportion of children on apremilast also responded in both the lower and upper weight ranges, a respective 52.4% and 38.7% of patients, compared with 21.4% and 11% of those treated with placebo.

Data were also evaluated according to age, with a younger (aged 6-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) group. The mean age of children was 12 years overall. Results showed a similar pattern for weight: The psoriasis of more children treated with apremilast was reduced by both measures, sPGA response, and PASI-75.
 

Safety of apremilast in children

“The overall safety profile during the placebo-controlled phase was comparable with the known safety profile of apremilast,” Dr. Belloni Fontina reported. “No new safety signals were identified.”

The rate of any adverse event was substantially higher in children given the active treatment, however, at 65% versus 41.3% for placebo.

Rates of severe and serious adverse events were low, at around 1.3%, and similar between the groups.

There was also a low rate of withdrawal because of side effects, although this was higher in the apremilast group (3.1% vs. 1.3%).

The primary reason for withdrawal of apremilast treatment were the most commonly reported adverse events: gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhea, nausea, upper and lower abdominal pain, and vomiting. Headache, pyrexia, and nasopharyngitis were also reported.

Despite being common, most treatment-related adverse effects resolved within 3 days, Dr. Belloni Fontina said.
 

Expect further data

Further data from the trial are to be expected, because only the 16-week primary endpoint results have been released so far. The trial also included a 36-week extension phase, during which all children who had originally been randomly assigned to placebo were now eligible to be treated with apremilast, and all those who were originally given the active treatment were able to continue. This extension treatment period means that data will be available for a full year of treatment, and there will also be a further 2-week observational follow-up at the end of the trial.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Belloni Fontina reported acting as an investigator and advisory board member for and receiving honoraria from Amgen, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. She also reported speaking on behalf of Pierre-Fabre and Galderma.

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

Losing weight and lowering body mass index may help people slow, delay, or even prevent the structural defects of knee osteoarthritis, especially on the medial side of the knee, results of a prospective multicohort study from Australia suggest.

“We showed that the more weight that is lost, the greater the apparent benefit for delaying or preventing knee joint degradation in osteoarthritis,” senior study author Amanda Sainsbury, PhD, professor of obesity research at the University of Western Australia, Perth, said in an interview. “For example, a person weighing 100 kilograms [220 pounds] who loses 10 kilograms [22 pounds] is likely to have double the benefit compared to losing 5 kilograms [11 pounds].”

wragg/iStockphoto.com

“We showed evidence of association, not causality,” she and her colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “Future randomized, controlled trials are required to demonstrate causality.”

Dr. Sainsbury and colleagues analyzed radiographs of knees from three independent cohort studies from the United States and the Netherlands – the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST), and the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study – at baseline and again 4-5 years later.

The authors created two groups of knees at baseline: the “incidence cohort” of 9,683 knees from 5,774 participants without OA structural defects (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0 or 1) and the “progression cohort” of 6,075 knees from 3,988 participants with OA structural defects (KL grade 2 or higher). After 4-5 years, they determined OA incidence (KL grade 2 or higher in participants without baseline knee OA) and progression (increase of one or more KL grades in those with baseline knee OA).At baseline, the mean patient age in both groups was around 60, and around 60% of participants were female. In the incidence and progression groups, respectively, White patients comprised 87.5% and 80.4% of participants; mean body mass index was 28.2 and 30.4 kg/m²; and 32.6% and 48.4% of participants were obese (BMI, 30 or higher). The authors combined data from the three studies and used logistic regression and generalized estimating equations, with clustering of both knees within individuals. On multivariable analysis, they found that change in BMI 4-5 years post baseline was positively linked with both incidence and progression of knee OA structural defects.

In the incidence group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 1,101 patients and increased 1 or more units in 1,611. In the progression group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 798 patients and increased in 1,008.

The adjusted odds ratio for overall structural defects in the incidence group was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.09) and 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01-1.09) in the progression group was. A 1-unit decrease in BMI was linked with a nearly 5% drop in odds of incidence and progression of knee OA, and a 5-unit decrease was linked with a more than 21% drop in odds of incidence and progression.

In the incidence group, change in BMI was positively linked with medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (narrowing; OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) and with medial femoral surface degeneration indicated by osteophytes (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

In the progression group, change in BMI was positively linked with overall structural defects (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09) as well as medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

“Previous research showed that weight loss helps reduce symptoms of knee osteoarthritis, such as pain and impaired physical function,” said lead study author Zübeyir Salis, BEng, a PhD student in public health at the University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia. “Weight loss is emerging as a suitable strategy for potentially delaying and preventing osteoarthritic knee joint degeneration.”
 

Two experts not involved in the study welcome its results

Kai Sun, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine, rheumatology, and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N. C., said it makes mechanical sense that less weight bearing decreases knee damage over time, but she was somewhat surprised that even people who started with normal BMI improved their outcomes by decreasing BMI further.

“Knee osteoarthritis and obesity prevalence are both growing,” Dr. Sun said. “Knee osteoarthritis may one day be considered an obesity-related comorbidity like hypertension and diabetes and be used as additional justification for pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions to treat obesity.”

She noted that the study’s major strengths include its large sample size, long follow-up, and separate inclusion of disease incidence and progression, but also noted some limitations.

“BMI data at only two time points does not consider BMI fluctuations between those times,” she added. “Limited data were presented on physical activity levels, and most participants being White and elderly limited the generalizability of the results.”

Eduardo Grunvald, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of the weight management program at the University of California, San Diego, agreed about the study’s strengths and pointed out its lack of information about the cause of BMI changes.

Dr. Grunvald would like to know whether the BMI changes contributed to the knee changes or vice versa. “An individual’s worsening knee pain could lead to less physical activity and possible increased BMI.

“Long-term weight-loss maintenance is extremely challenging, and for optimal outcomes, medical professionals who treat joint disease should partner with clinicians trained to treat obesity,” he advised.

The authors are planning further related research. “We’re looking forward to running a randomized, controlled clinical weight-loss trial,” Dr. Sainsbury said.The study was supported by scholarship and fellowship funds from the Australian government. Mr. Salis and Dr. Sainsbury each own 50% of shares in a company that provides educational resources and services in adult weight management. Dr. Sainsbury and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Sun and Dr. Grunvald reported no relevant financial relationships.

Losing weight and lowering body mass index may help people slow, delay, or even prevent the structural defects of knee osteoarthritis, especially on the medial side of the knee, results of a prospective multicohort study from Australia suggest.

“We showed that the more weight that is lost, the greater the apparent benefit for delaying or preventing knee joint degradation in osteoarthritis,” senior study author Amanda Sainsbury, PhD, professor of obesity research at the University of Western Australia, Perth, said in an interview. “For example, a person weighing 100 kilograms [220 pounds] who loses 10 kilograms [22 pounds] is likely to have double the benefit compared to losing 5 kilograms [11 pounds].”

wragg/iStockphoto.com

“We showed evidence of association, not causality,” she and her colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “Future randomized, controlled trials are required to demonstrate causality.”

Dr. Sainsbury and colleagues analyzed radiographs of knees from three independent cohort studies from the United States and the Netherlands – the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST), and the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study – at baseline and again 4-5 years later.

The authors created two groups of knees at baseline: the “incidence cohort” of 9,683 knees from 5,774 participants without OA structural defects (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0 or 1) and the “progression cohort” of 6,075 knees from 3,988 participants with OA structural defects (KL grade 2 or higher). After 4-5 years, they determined OA incidence (KL grade 2 or higher in participants without baseline knee OA) and progression (increase of one or more KL grades in those with baseline knee OA).At baseline, the mean patient age in both groups was around 60, and around 60% of participants were female. In the incidence and progression groups, respectively, White patients comprised 87.5% and 80.4% of participants; mean body mass index was 28.2 and 30.4 kg/m²; and 32.6% and 48.4% of participants were obese (BMI, 30 or higher). The authors combined data from the three studies and used logistic regression and generalized estimating equations, with clustering of both knees within individuals. On multivariable analysis, they found that change in BMI 4-5 years post baseline was positively linked with both incidence and progression of knee OA structural defects.

In the incidence group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 1,101 patients and increased 1 or more units in 1,611. In the progression group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 798 patients and increased in 1,008.

The adjusted odds ratio for overall structural defects in the incidence group was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.09) and 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01-1.09) in the progression group was. A 1-unit decrease in BMI was linked with a nearly 5% drop in odds of incidence and progression of knee OA, and a 5-unit decrease was linked with a more than 21% drop in odds of incidence and progression.

In the incidence group, change in BMI was positively linked with medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (narrowing; OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) and with medial femoral surface degeneration indicated by osteophytes (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

In the progression group, change in BMI was positively linked with overall structural defects (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09) as well as medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

“Previous research showed that weight loss helps reduce symptoms of knee osteoarthritis, such as pain and impaired physical function,” said lead study author Zübeyir Salis, BEng, a PhD student in public health at the University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia. “Weight loss is emerging as a suitable strategy for potentially delaying and preventing osteoarthritic knee joint degeneration.”
 

Two experts not involved in the study welcome its results

Kai Sun, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine, rheumatology, and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N. C., said it makes mechanical sense that less weight bearing decreases knee damage over time, but she was somewhat surprised that even people who started with normal BMI improved their outcomes by decreasing BMI further.

“Knee osteoarthritis and obesity prevalence are both growing,” Dr. Sun said. “Knee osteoarthritis may one day be considered an obesity-related comorbidity like hypertension and diabetes and be used as additional justification for pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions to treat obesity.”

She noted that the study’s major strengths include its large sample size, long follow-up, and separate inclusion of disease incidence and progression, but also noted some limitations.

“BMI data at only two time points does not consider BMI fluctuations between those times,” she added. “Limited data were presented on physical activity levels, and most participants being White and elderly limited the generalizability of the results.”

Eduardo Grunvald, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of the weight management program at the University of California, San Diego, agreed about the study’s strengths and pointed out its lack of information about the cause of BMI changes.

Dr. Grunvald would like to know whether the BMI changes contributed to the knee changes or vice versa. “An individual’s worsening knee pain could lead to less physical activity and possible increased BMI.

“Long-term weight-loss maintenance is extremely challenging, and for optimal outcomes, medical professionals who treat joint disease should partner with clinicians trained to treat obesity,” he advised.

The authors are planning further related research. “We’re looking forward to running a randomized, controlled clinical weight-loss trial,” Dr. Sainsbury said.The study was supported by scholarship and fellowship funds from the Australian government. Mr. Salis and Dr. Sainsbury each own 50% of shares in a company that provides educational resources and services in adult weight management. Dr. Sainsbury and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Sun and Dr. Grunvald reported no relevant financial relationships.

Losing weight and lowering body mass index may help people slow, delay, or even prevent the structural defects of knee osteoarthritis, especially on the medial side of the knee, results of a prospective multicohort study from Australia suggest.

“We showed that the more weight that is lost, the greater the apparent benefit for delaying or preventing knee joint degradation in osteoarthritis,” senior study author Amanda Sainsbury, PhD, professor of obesity research at the University of Western Australia, Perth, said in an interview. “For example, a person weighing 100 kilograms [220 pounds] who loses 10 kilograms [22 pounds] is likely to have double the benefit compared to losing 5 kilograms [11 pounds].”

wragg/iStockphoto.com

“We showed evidence of association, not causality,” she and her colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “Future randomized, controlled trials are required to demonstrate causality.”

Dr. Sainsbury and colleagues analyzed radiographs of knees from three independent cohort studies from the United States and the Netherlands – the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST), and the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study – at baseline and again 4-5 years later.

The authors created two groups of knees at baseline: the “incidence cohort” of 9,683 knees from 5,774 participants without OA structural defects (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0 or 1) and the “progression cohort” of 6,075 knees from 3,988 participants with OA structural defects (KL grade 2 or higher). After 4-5 years, they determined OA incidence (KL grade 2 or higher in participants without baseline knee OA) and progression (increase of one or more KL grades in those with baseline knee OA).At baseline, the mean patient age in both groups was around 60, and around 60% of participants were female. In the incidence and progression groups, respectively, White patients comprised 87.5% and 80.4% of participants; mean body mass index was 28.2 and 30.4 kg/m²; and 32.6% and 48.4% of participants were obese (BMI, 30 or higher). The authors combined data from the three studies and used logistic regression and generalized estimating equations, with clustering of both knees within individuals. On multivariable analysis, they found that change in BMI 4-5 years post baseline was positively linked with both incidence and progression of knee OA structural defects.

In the incidence group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 1,101 patients and increased 1 or more units in 1,611. In the progression group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 798 patients and increased in 1,008.

The adjusted odds ratio for overall structural defects in the incidence group was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.09) and 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01-1.09) in the progression group was. A 1-unit decrease in BMI was linked with a nearly 5% drop in odds of incidence and progression of knee OA, and a 5-unit decrease was linked with a more than 21% drop in odds of incidence and progression.

In the incidence group, change in BMI was positively linked with medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (narrowing; OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) and with medial femoral surface degeneration indicated by osteophytes (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

In the progression group, change in BMI was positively linked with overall structural defects (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09) as well as medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

“Previous research showed that weight loss helps reduce symptoms of knee osteoarthritis, such as pain and impaired physical function,” said lead study author Zübeyir Salis, BEng, a PhD student in public health at the University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia. “Weight loss is emerging as a suitable strategy for potentially delaying and preventing osteoarthritic knee joint degeneration.”
 

Two experts not involved in the study welcome its results

Kai Sun, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine, rheumatology, and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N. C., said it makes mechanical sense that less weight bearing decreases knee damage over time, but she was somewhat surprised that even people who started with normal BMI improved their outcomes by decreasing BMI further.

“Knee osteoarthritis and obesity prevalence are both growing,” Dr. Sun said. “Knee osteoarthritis may one day be considered an obesity-related comorbidity like hypertension and diabetes and be used as additional justification for pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions to treat obesity.”

She noted that the study’s major strengths include its large sample size, long follow-up, and separate inclusion of disease incidence and progression, but also noted some limitations.

“BMI data at only two time points does not consider BMI fluctuations between those times,” she added. “Limited data were presented on physical activity levels, and most participants being White and elderly limited the generalizability of the results.”

Eduardo Grunvald, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of the weight management program at the University of California, San Diego, agreed about the study’s strengths and pointed out its lack of information about the cause of BMI changes.

Dr. Grunvald would like to know whether the BMI changes contributed to the knee changes or vice versa. “An individual’s worsening knee pain could lead to less physical activity and possible increased BMI.

“Long-term weight-loss maintenance is extremely challenging, and for optimal outcomes, medical professionals who treat joint disease should partner with clinicians trained to treat obesity,” he advised.

The authors are planning further related research. “We’re looking forward to running a randomized, controlled clinical weight-loss trial,” Dr. Sainsbury said.The study was supported by scholarship and fellowship funds from the Australian government. Mr. Salis and Dr. Sainsbury each own 50% of shares in a company that provides educational resources and services in adult weight management. Dr. Sainsbury and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Sun and Dr. Grunvald reported no relevant financial relationships.

Queen Elizabeth is everywhere. She was even on the last slide of a presentation on COVID, monkeypox, and influenza vaccines given by our physician in charge of quality. This was odd. The presenter wasn’t English. The Queen had nothing to do with vaccines. Nor apparently would she have said even if she did have an opinion about them. But there we were, an audience of physicians and staff pausing for a moment of remembrance of her.

I’m not a Monarchist – except perhaps for the Kennedys. I grew up in New England. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the British Crown should endure. But I do marvel at the astounding effect Queen Elizabeth’s passing had on so many around the world. Her personal qualities, particularly her steadiness and humane sympathy, might explain why so many are sad hearing the news. But also I think there was something in her role that we all wished for: Not the owning of palaces and sceptres, but rather, the respect that was given to her.

She was a stateswoman of “unmatched dignity,” the White House wrote. That was true, but it seems being the Queen might have been the last job on earth where such dignity is still possible. Certainly in politics, education, and even health care, there doesn’t seem to be much left lately.

The same day of that presentation I walked into the room of a patient 22 minutes late, she held her arm forth tapping her watch to indicate the time and my tardiness. Unnecessary, if not impertinent. Covering for one of my female physician colleagues, I read an email from a patient which began, “Dear Julie, With all due respect …” Another patient submitted a photo for us to review that was clearly taken from her car while waiting at a stop light. Hardly the consideration a clinical encounter should be given.

Much has been lost for patients. too. There are patients trying to make appointments lately who are told: “There are none. Call back later.” Gone it seems are the days of a two-part office visit, the first part fully clothed in the physician’s office, then the exam. There is no dignified way to remove exam paper stuck to your backside before introducing yourself to the doctor. Maybe that last slide of Her Majesty was in fact for us to have a moment of silence for what we’ve all lost.

Walter Bagehot (pronounce it “Baj-et” if you tell this story to your Harlan wine friends) was a political writer and editor of The Economist in the 1860s. He famously said that the secret to the English government was having two kinds of institutions, the dignified and the efficient. The efficient, Parliament, was responsible for all the work. The dignified, the Crown, gives significance and holds everyone’s respect. If medicine ever once was both dignified and efficient, we aren’t lately. We push to reduce backlogs, offer same-time virtual care, work to reduce costs. We’ve driven medicine to the efficient and left little of the dignity it seems.

The Queen will be remembered for her lifelong dedication to the laborious service of others. Even though each of us in medicine pledges the same, we also mourn this week the loss of dignity that once came with it.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Queen Elizabeth is everywhere. She was even on the last slide of a presentation on COVID, monkeypox, and influenza vaccines given by our physician in charge of quality. This was odd. The presenter wasn’t English. The Queen had nothing to do with vaccines. Nor apparently would she have said even if she did have an opinion about them. But there we were, an audience of physicians and staff pausing for a moment of remembrance of her.

I’m not a Monarchist – except perhaps for the Kennedys. I grew up in New England. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the British Crown should endure. But I do marvel at the astounding effect Queen Elizabeth’s passing had on so many around the world. Her personal qualities, particularly her steadiness and humane sympathy, might explain why so many are sad hearing the news. But also I think there was something in her role that we all wished for: Not the owning of palaces and sceptres, but rather, the respect that was given to her.

She was a stateswoman of “unmatched dignity,” the White House wrote. That was true, but it seems being the Queen might have been the last job on earth where such dignity is still possible. Certainly in politics, education, and even health care, there doesn’t seem to be much left lately.

The same day of that presentation I walked into the room of a patient 22 minutes late, she held her arm forth tapping her watch to indicate the time and my tardiness. Unnecessary, if not impertinent. Covering for one of my female physician colleagues, I read an email from a patient which began, “Dear Julie, With all due respect …” Another patient submitted a photo for us to review that was clearly taken from her car while waiting at a stop light. Hardly the consideration a clinical encounter should be given.

Much has been lost for patients. too. There are patients trying to make appointments lately who are told: “There are none. Call back later.” Gone it seems are the days of a two-part office visit, the first part fully clothed in the physician’s office, then the exam. There is no dignified way to remove exam paper stuck to your backside before introducing yourself to the doctor. Maybe that last slide of Her Majesty was in fact for us to have a moment of silence for what we’ve all lost.

Walter Bagehot (pronounce it “Baj-et” if you tell this story to your Harlan wine friends) was a political writer and editor of The Economist in the 1860s. He famously said that the secret to the English government was having two kinds of institutions, the dignified and the efficient. The efficient, Parliament, was responsible for all the work. The dignified, the Crown, gives significance and holds everyone’s respect. If medicine ever once was both dignified and efficient, we aren’t lately. We push to reduce backlogs, offer same-time virtual care, work to reduce costs. We’ve driven medicine to the efficient and left little of the dignity it seems.

The Queen will be remembered for her lifelong dedication to the laborious service of others. Even though each of us in medicine pledges the same, we also mourn this week the loss of dignity that once came with it.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Queen Elizabeth is everywhere. She was even on the last slide of a presentation on COVID, monkeypox, and influenza vaccines given by our physician in charge of quality. This was odd. The presenter wasn’t English. The Queen had nothing to do with vaccines. Nor apparently would she have said even if she did have an opinion about them. But there we were, an audience of physicians and staff pausing for a moment of remembrance of her.

I’m not a Monarchist – except perhaps for the Kennedys. I grew up in New England. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the British Crown should endure. But I do marvel at the astounding effect Queen Elizabeth’s passing had on so many around the world. Her personal qualities, particularly her steadiness and humane sympathy, might explain why so many are sad hearing the news. But also I think there was something in her role that we all wished for: Not the owning of palaces and sceptres, but rather, the respect that was given to her.

She was a stateswoman of “unmatched dignity,” the White House wrote. That was true, but it seems being the Queen might have been the last job on earth where such dignity is still possible. Certainly in politics, education, and even health care, there doesn’t seem to be much left lately.

The same day of that presentation I walked into the room of a patient 22 minutes late, she held her arm forth tapping her watch to indicate the time and my tardiness. Unnecessary, if not impertinent. Covering for one of my female physician colleagues, I read an email from a patient which began, “Dear Julie, With all due respect …” Another patient submitted a photo for us to review that was clearly taken from her car while waiting at a stop light. Hardly the consideration a clinical encounter should be given.

Much has been lost for patients. too. There are patients trying to make appointments lately who are told: “There are none. Call back later.” Gone it seems are the days of a two-part office visit, the first part fully clothed in the physician’s office, then the exam. There is no dignified way to remove exam paper stuck to your backside before introducing yourself to the doctor. Maybe that last slide of Her Majesty was in fact for us to have a moment of silence for what we’ve all lost.

Walter Bagehot (pronounce it “Baj-et” if you tell this story to your Harlan wine friends) was a political writer and editor of The Economist in the 1860s. He famously said that the secret to the English government was having two kinds of institutions, the dignified and the efficient. The efficient, Parliament, was responsible for all the work. The dignified, the Crown, gives significance and holds everyone’s respect. If medicine ever once was both dignified and efficient, we aren’t lately. We push to reduce backlogs, offer same-time virtual care, work to reduce costs. We’ve driven medicine to the efficient and left little of the dignity it seems.

The Queen will be remembered for her lifelong dedication to the laborious service of others. Even though each of us in medicine pledges the same, we also mourn this week the loss of dignity that once came with it.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Health care costs are skyrocketing for everyone! For employers, the cost of health insurance is second only to their payroll expense. Per person spending in employer plans grew by 22% between 2015 and 2019. This outpaced inflation and economic growth. Affording health insurance for business owners has become more and more difficult, bordering on desperation for some. Consequently, they are looking for ways to be more efficient in their health care spending. One way is through self-funding their employees’ health care costs. This means that the employer directly pays for the care of their employees. While it has always been thought this was just for very large employers, it is becoming more common with smaller businesses. There is more flexibility and oversight with self-funded plans, and the employer can dictate exactly what benefits are covered within the bounds of the law. While this can make it easier to exclude certain therapies and even institute site-of-care restrictions, it also can make the employer vulnerable to health insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and third-party administrators (TPAs) that promise large discounts in plan and drug spending at the expense of their employees’ health.

Recently enacted state laws often don’t apply

Because employers who self-fund the health care for their employees are increasingly desperate to save money, they will often agree to plans that are less expensive but offer suboptimal care, particularly for patients with chronic diseases requiring expensive medicines. Many employers are not fully informed of the ramifications of these policies, so the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is creating an educational employer tool kit that not only highlights the importance of disease control for their employees with rheumatic conditions but also outlines the pitfalls and misinformation that may be given to them by the insurance companies, PBMs, and other third parties that administer their health plan.

Policies that sacrifice patient care of course are not exclusive to certain self-funded health plans. The CSRO’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) receives complaints daily from rheumatologists around the country regarding both the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and non-ERISA health plan policies that are harmful to their patients. Our PIRT team assesses these complaints and researches solutions that can include writing letters to the health insurance companies, employers, and departments of insurance, as well as applying enacted state legislation that overrides some of the detrimental policies. (Utilization management legislation, which has passed in many states, can be easily found on CSRO’s map tool.) These state laws can help patients with everything from harmful step therapy and nonmedical switching policies to accumulator adjustment programs denying application of copay card value to their deductibles. Unfortunately, these laws do not apply to most self-funded employer health plans, which are preempted by ERISA. Consequently, those employees are not protected from harmful changes in formularies and other policies.
 

Forced ‘white bagging’ in self-funded plans

Mandated “white bagging” has become a favorite for health plans covered by large insurance companies, which say that the practice is less expensive than what the physician would charge for the medication. White bagging takes away the ability of the physician to “buy and bill” infusibles that are given in their office. While some rheumatologists may accept this, there are many who do not accept infusible medications coming from another source. Often the health plan will tell the rheumatologist they must accept the white bagging or transfer the patient to another rheumatologist who will. Clearly, many health plans and TPAs do not understand the bonds that are created over the years between rheumatologists and their patients. Ironically, the price of the white-bagged medication charged to the employer has been shown often to be higher than what the physician would have charged.

Some TPAs also convince employers to carve out specialty medications from their policy entirely, leaving the employee uninsured for these meds. These TPAs then attempt to obtain the medications from the manufacturers, foundations, compounding pharmacies, and even other countries for free or highly discounted prices. Even if obtained at no cost, the TPA will charge the employer a percentage of the list price or fee for obtaining it. On the surface, this may seem like a good idea, but there are a number of issues with this, including some that are legally suspect. First of all, uninsuring employees for certain medications to take advantage of patient assistance programs from manufacturers and foundations could be viewed as perfectly legal and perfectly unethical. The legality of this practice is questionable when these companies pretend to be the patient when applying for the assistance or present compounded medication as coming from the manufacturer, or if the TPA obtains the medication from outside the country. Additionally, many employers end up paying 20% of the list price of a medication for a service that physicians provide at no cost for uninsured patients.
 

Educating employers

CSRO’s employer tool kit hopes to educate employers with self-funded health plans about the pitfalls of some of these policies and offers suggestions on how to best navigate these issues for employees with rheumatic diseases. We are hoping to launch this tool kit to small to medium business groups in the near future.

Advocacy is more than just contacting health insurers and those who make our laws and regulations. Although that is important, reaching out to those who employ our patients can be integral to ensuring they get the best care.

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

Health care costs are skyrocketing for everyone! For employers, the cost of health insurance is second only to their payroll expense. Per person spending in employer plans grew by 22% between 2015 and 2019. This outpaced inflation and economic growth. Affording health insurance for business owners has become more and more difficult, bordering on desperation for some. Consequently, they are looking for ways to be more efficient in their health care spending. One way is through self-funding their employees’ health care costs. This means that the employer directly pays for the care of their employees. While it has always been thought this was just for very large employers, it is becoming more common with smaller businesses. There is more flexibility and oversight with self-funded plans, and the employer can dictate exactly what benefits are covered within the bounds of the law. While this can make it easier to exclude certain therapies and even institute site-of-care restrictions, it also can make the employer vulnerable to health insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and third-party administrators (TPAs) that promise large discounts in plan and drug spending at the expense of their employees’ health.

Recently enacted state laws often don’t apply

Because employers who self-fund the health care for their employees are increasingly desperate to save money, they will often agree to plans that are less expensive but offer suboptimal care, particularly for patients with chronic diseases requiring expensive medicines. Many employers are not fully informed of the ramifications of these policies, so the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is creating an educational employer tool kit that not only highlights the importance of disease control for their employees with rheumatic conditions but also outlines the pitfalls and misinformation that may be given to them by the insurance companies, PBMs, and other third parties that administer their health plan.

Policies that sacrifice patient care of course are not exclusive to certain self-funded health plans. The CSRO’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) receives complaints daily from rheumatologists around the country regarding both the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and non-ERISA health plan policies that are harmful to their patients. Our PIRT team assesses these complaints and researches solutions that can include writing letters to the health insurance companies, employers, and departments of insurance, as well as applying enacted state legislation that overrides some of the detrimental policies. (Utilization management legislation, which has passed in many states, can be easily found on CSRO’s map tool.) These state laws can help patients with everything from harmful step therapy and nonmedical switching policies to accumulator adjustment programs denying application of copay card value to their deductibles. Unfortunately, these laws do not apply to most self-funded employer health plans, which are preempted by ERISA. Consequently, those employees are not protected from harmful changes in formularies and other policies.
 

Forced ‘white bagging’ in self-funded plans

Mandated “white bagging” has become a favorite for health plans covered by large insurance companies, which say that the practice is less expensive than what the physician would charge for the medication. White bagging takes away the ability of the physician to “buy and bill” infusibles that are given in their office. While some rheumatologists may accept this, there are many who do not accept infusible medications coming from another source. Often the health plan will tell the rheumatologist they must accept the white bagging or transfer the patient to another rheumatologist who will. Clearly, many health plans and TPAs do not understand the bonds that are created over the years between rheumatologists and their patients. Ironically, the price of the white-bagged medication charged to the employer has been shown often to be higher than what the physician would have charged.

Some TPAs also convince employers to carve out specialty medications from their policy entirely, leaving the employee uninsured for these meds. These TPAs then attempt to obtain the medications from the manufacturers, foundations, compounding pharmacies, and even other countries for free or highly discounted prices. Even if obtained at no cost, the TPA will charge the employer a percentage of the list price or fee for obtaining it. On the surface, this may seem like a good idea, but there are a number of issues with this, including some that are legally suspect. First of all, uninsuring employees for certain medications to take advantage of patient assistance programs from manufacturers and foundations could be viewed as perfectly legal and perfectly unethical. The legality of this practice is questionable when these companies pretend to be the patient when applying for the assistance or present compounded medication as coming from the manufacturer, or if the TPA obtains the medication from outside the country. Additionally, many employers end up paying 20% of the list price of a medication for a service that physicians provide at no cost for uninsured patients.
 

Educating employers

CSRO’s employer tool kit hopes to educate employers with self-funded health plans about the pitfalls of some of these policies and offers suggestions on how to best navigate these issues for employees with rheumatic diseases. We are hoping to launch this tool kit to small to medium business groups in the near future.

Advocacy is more than just contacting health insurers and those who make our laws and regulations. Although that is important, reaching out to those who employ our patients can be integral to ensuring they get the best care.

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

Health care costs are skyrocketing for everyone! For employers, the cost of health insurance is second only to their payroll expense. Per person spending in employer plans grew by 22% between 2015 and 2019. This outpaced inflation and economic growth. Affording health insurance for business owners has become more and more difficult, bordering on desperation for some. Consequently, they are looking for ways to be more efficient in their health care spending. One way is through self-funding their employees’ health care costs. This means that the employer directly pays for the care of their employees. While it has always been thought this was just for very large employers, it is becoming more common with smaller businesses. There is more flexibility and oversight with self-funded plans, and the employer can dictate exactly what benefits are covered within the bounds of the law. While this can make it easier to exclude certain therapies and even institute site-of-care restrictions, it also can make the employer vulnerable to health insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and third-party administrators (TPAs) that promise large discounts in plan and drug spending at the expense of their employees’ health.

Recently enacted state laws often don’t apply

Because employers who self-fund the health care for their employees are increasingly desperate to save money, they will often agree to plans that are less expensive but offer suboptimal care, particularly for patients with chronic diseases requiring expensive medicines. Many employers are not fully informed of the ramifications of these policies, so the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is creating an educational employer tool kit that not only highlights the importance of disease control for their employees with rheumatic conditions but also outlines the pitfalls and misinformation that may be given to them by the insurance companies, PBMs, and other third parties that administer their health plan.

Policies that sacrifice patient care of course are not exclusive to certain self-funded health plans. The CSRO’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) receives complaints daily from rheumatologists around the country regarding both the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and non-ERISA health plan policies that are harmful to their patients. Our PIRT team assesses these complaints and researches solutions that can include writing letters to the health insurance companies, employers, and departments of insurance, as well as applying enacted state legislation that overrides some of the detrimental policies. (Utilization management legislation, which has passed in many states, can be easily found on CSRO’s map tool.) These state laws can help patients with everything from harmful step therapy and nonmedical switching policies to accumulator adjustment programs denying application of copay card value to their deductibles. Unfortunately, these laws do not apply to most self-funded employer health plans, which are preempted by ERISA. Consequently, those employees are not protected from harmful changes in formularies and other policies.
 

Forced ‘white bagging’ in self-funded plans

Mandated “white bagging” has become a favorite for health plans covered by large insurance companies, which say that the practice is less expensive than what the physician would charge for the medication. White bagging takes away the ability of the physician to “buy and bill” infusibles that are given in their office. While some rheumatologists may accept this, there are many who do not accept infusible medications coming from another source. Often the health plan will tell the rheumatologist they must accept the white bagging or transfer the patient to another rheumatologist who will. Clearly, many health plans and TPAs do not understand the bonds that are created over the years between rheumatologists and their patients. Ironically, the price of the white-bagged medication charged to the employer has been shown often to be higher than what the physician would have charged.

Some TPAs also convince employers to carve out specialty medications from their policy entirely, leaving the employee uninsured for these meds. These TPAs then attempt to obtain the medications from the manufacturers, foundations, compounding pharmacies, and even other countries for free or highly discounted prices. Even if obtained at no cost, the TPA will charge the employer a percentage of the list price or fee for obtaining it. On the surface, this may seem like a good idea, but there are a number of issues with this, including some that are legally suspect. First of all, uninsuring employees for certain medications to take advantage of patient assistance programs from manufacturers and foundations could be viewed as perfectly legal and perfectly unethical. The legality of this practice is questionable when these companies pretend to be the patient when applying for the assistance or present compounded medication as coming from the manufacturer, or if the TPA obtains the medication from outside the country. Additionally, many employers end up paying 20% of the list price of a medication for a service that physicians provide at no cost for uninsured patients.
 

Educating employers

CSRO’s employer tool kit hopes to educate employers with self-funded health plans about the pitfalls of some of these policies and offers suggestions on how to best navigate these issues for employees with rheumatic diseases. We are hoping to launch this tool kit to small to medium business groups in the near future.

Advocacy is more than just contacting health insurers and those who make our laws and regulations. Although that is important, reaching out to those who employ our patients can be integral to ensuring they get the best care.

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

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.

The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.

While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.

ironstealth/Thinkstock

Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).

“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.

Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”

“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.

“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.

The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.

While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.

ironstealth/Thinkstock

Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).

“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.

Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”

“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.

“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.

The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.

While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.

ironstealth/Thinkstock

Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).

“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.

Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”

“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.

“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

The path through the U.S. Senate is not yet certain for a bill intended to speed the prior authorization process of insurer-run Medicare Advantage plans, despite the measure having breezed through the House.

House leaders opted to move the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 (HR 3173) without requiring a roll-call vote. The measure was passed on Sept. 14 by a voice vote, an approach used in general with only uncontroversial measures that have broad support. The bill has 191 Democratic and 135 Republican sponsors, representing about three-quarters of the members of the House.

Alicia Ault/Frontline Medical News

“There is no reason that patients should be waiting for medically appropriate care, especially when we know that this can lead to worse outcomes,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said in a Sept. 14 speech on the House floor. “The fundamental promise of Medicare Advantage is undermined when people are delaying care, getting sicker, and ultimately costing Medicare more money.”

Rep. Greg Murphy, MD (R-N.C.), spoke on the House floor that day as well, bringing up cases he has seen in his own urology practice in which prior authorization delays disrupted medical care. One patient wound up in the hospital with abscess after an insurer denied an antibiotic prescription, Rep. Murphy said.

But the Senate appears unlikely at this time to move the prior authorization bill as a standalone measure. Instead, the bill may become part of a larger legislative package focused on health care that the Senate Finance Committee intends to prepare later this year.

The House-passed bill would require insurer-run Medicare plans to respond to expedited requests for prior authorization of services within 24 hours and to other requests within 7 days. This bill also would establish an electronic program for prior authorizations and mandate increased transparency as to how insurers use this tool.
 

CBO: Cost of change would be billions

In seeking to mandate changes in prior authorization, lawmakers likely will need to contend with the issue of a $16 billion cumulative cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. Members of Congress often seek to offset new spending by pairing bills that add to expected costs for the federal government with ones expected to produce savings.

Unlike Rep. Blumenauer, Rep. Murphy, and other backers of the prior authorization streamlining bill, CBO staff estimates that making the mandated changes would raise federal spending, inasmuch as there would be “a greater use of services.”

On Sept. 14, CBO issued a one-page report on the costs of the bill. The CBO report concerns only the bill in question, as is common practice with the office’s estimates.

Prior authorization changes would begin in fiscal 2025 and would add $899 million in spending, or outlays, that year, CBO said. The annual costs from the streamlined prior authorization practices through fiscal 2026 to 2032 range from $1.6 billion to $2.7 billion.

Looking at the CBO estimate against a backdrop of total Medicare Advantage costs, though, may provide important context.

The increases in spending estimated by CBO may suggest that there would be little change in federal spending as a result of streamlining prior authorization practices. These estimates of increased annual spending of $1.6 billion–$2.7 billion are only a small fraction of the current annual cost of insurer-run Medicare, and they represent an even smaller share of the projected expense.

The federal government last year spent about $350 billion on insurer-run plans, excluding Part D drug plan payments, according to the Medicare Advisory Payment Commission (MedPAC).

As of 2021, about 27 million people were enrolled in these plans, accounting for about 46% of the total Medicare population. Enrollment has doubled since 2010, MedPAC said, and it is expected to continue to grow. By 2027, insurer-run Medicare could cover 50% of the program’s population, a figure that may reach 53% by 2031.

Federal payments to these plans will accelerate in the years ahead as insurers attract more people eligible for Medicare as customers. Payments to these private health plans could rise from an expected $418 billion this year to $940.6 billion by 2031, according to the most recent Medicare trustees report.

Good intentions, poor implementation?

Insurer-run Medicare has long enjoyed deep bipartisan support in Congress. That’s due in part to its potential for reducing spending on what are considered low-value treatments, or ones considered unlikely to provide a significant medical benefit, but Rep. Blumenauer is among the members of Congress who see insurer-run Medicare as a path for preserving the giant federal health program. Traditional Medicare has far fewer restrictions on services, which sometimes opens a path for tests and treatments that offer less value for patients.

“I believe that the way traditional fee-for-service Medicare operates is not sustainable and that Medicare Advantage is one of the tools we can use to demonstrate how we can incentivize value,” Rep. Blumenauer said on the House floor. “But this is only possible when the program operates as intended. I have been deeply concerned about the reports of delays in care” caused by the clunky prior authorization processes.

He highlighted a recent report from the internal watchdog group for the Department of Health & Human Services that raises concerns about denials of appropriate care. About 18% of a set of payment denials examined by the Office of Inspector General of HHS in April actually met Medicare coverage rules and plan billing rules.

“For patients and their families, being told that you need to wait longer for care that your doctor tells you that you need is incredibly frustrating and frightening,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “There’s no comfort to be found in the fact that your insurance company needs time to decide if your doctor is right.”
 

Trends in prior authorization

The CBO report does not provide detail on what kind of medical spending would increase under a streamlined prior authorization process in insurer-run Medicare plans.

From trends reported in prior authorization, though, two factors could be at play in what appear to be relatively small estimated increases in Medicare spending from streamlined prior authorization.

One is the work already underway to create less burdensome electronic systems for these requests, such as the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway initiative run by the trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The other factor could be the number of cases in which prior authorization merely causes delays in treatments and tests and thus simply postpones spending while adding to clinicians’ administrative work.

An analysis of prior authorization requests for dermatologic practices affiliated with the University of Utah may represent an extreme example. In a report published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, researchers described what happened with requests made during 1 month, September 2016.

The approval rate for procedures was 99.6% – 100% (95 of 95) for Mohs surgery, and 96% (130 of 131, with 4 additional cases pending) for excisions. These findings supported calls for simplifying prior authorization procedures, “perhaps first by eliminating unnecessary PAs [prior authorizations] and appeals,” Aaron M. Secrest, MD, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and coauthors wrote in the article.

Still, there is some evidence that insurer-run Medicare policies reduce the use of low-value care.

In a study published in JAMA Health Forum, Emily Boudreau, PhD, of insurer Humana Inc, and coauthors from Tufts University, Boston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia investigated whether insurer-run Medicare could do a better job in reducing the amount of low-value care delivered than the traditional program. They analyzed a set of claims data from 2017 to 2019 for people enrolled in insurer-run and traditional Medicare.

They reported a rate of 23.07 low-value services provided per 100 people in insurer-run Medicare, compared with 25.39 for those in traditional Medicare. Some of the biggest differences reported in the article were in cancer screenings for older people.

As an example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women older than 65 years not be screened for cervical cancer if they have undergone adequate screening in the past and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. There was an annual count of 1.76 screenings for cervical cancer per 100 women older than 65 in the insurer-run Medicare group versus 3.18 for those in traditional Medicare.

The Better Medicare Alliance issued a statement in favor of the House passage of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act.

In it, the group said the measure would “modernize prior authorization while protecting its essential function in facilitating safe, high-value, evidence-based care.” The alliance promotes use of insurer-run Medicare. The board of the Better Medicare Alliance includes executives who serve with firms that run Advantage plans as well as medical organizations and universities.

“With studies showing that up to one-quarter of all health care expenditures are wasted on services with no benefit to the patient, we need a robust, next-generation prior authorization program to deter low-value, and even harmful, care while protecting access to needed treatment and effective therapies,” said A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, in a statement issued by the Better Medicare Alliance. He is a member of the group’s council of scholars.

On the House floor on September 14, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), said he has heard from former colleagues and his medical school classmates that they now spend as much as 40% of their time on administrative work. These distractions from patient care are helping drive physicians away from the practice of medicine.

Still, the internist defended the basic premise of prior authorization while strongly appealing for better systems of handling it.

“Yes, there is a role for prior authorization in limited cases. There is also a role to go back and retrospectively look at how care is being delivered,” Rep. Bera said. “But what is happening today is a travesty. It wasn’t the intention of prior authorization. It is a prior authorization process gone awry.”

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

The path through the U.S. Senate is not yet certain for a bill intended to speed the prior authorization process of insurer-run Medicare Advantage plans, despite the measure having breezed through the House.

House leaders opted to move the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 (HR 3173) without requiring a roll-call vote. The measure was passed on Sept. 14 by a voice vote, an approach used in general with only uncontroversial measures that have broad support. The bill has 191 Democratic and 135 Republican sponsors, representing about three-quarters of the members of the House.

Alicia Ault/Frontline Medical News

“There is no reason that patients should be waiting for medically appropriate care, especially when we know that this can lead to worse outcomes,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said in a Sept. 14 speech on the House floor. “The fundamental promise of Medicare Advantage is undermined when people are delaying care, getting sicker, and ultimately costing Medicare more money.”

Rep. Greg Murphy, MD (R-N.C.), spoke on the House floor that day as well, bringing up cases he has seen in his own urology practice in which prior authorization delays disrupted medical care. One patient wound up in the hospital with abscess after an insurer denied an antibiotic prescription, Rep. Murphy said.

But the Senate appears unlikely at this time to move the prior authorization bill as a standalone measure. Instead, the bill may become part of a larger legislative package focused on health care that the Senate Finance Committee intends to prepare later this year.

The House-passed bill would require insurer-run Medicare plans to respond to expedited requests for prior authorization of services within 24 hours and to other requests within 7 days. This bill also would establish an electronic program for prior authorizations and mandate increased transparency as to how insurers use this tool.
 

CBO: Cost of change would be billions

In seeking to mandate changes in prior authorization, lawmakers likely will need to contend with the issue of a $16 billion cumulative cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. Members of Congress often seek to offset new spending by pairing bills that add to expected costs for the federal government with ones expected to produce savings.

Unlike Rep. Blumenauer, Rep. Murphy, and other backers of the prior authorization streamlining bill, CBO staff estimates that making the mandated changes would raise federal spending, inasmuch as there would be “a greater use of services.”

On Sept. 14, CBO issued a one-page report on the costs of the bill. The CBO report concerns only the bill in question, as is common practice with the office’s estimates.

Prior authorization changes would begin in fiscal 2025 and would add $899 million in spending, or outlays, that year, CBO said. The annual costs from the streamlined prior authorization practices through fiscal 2026 to 2032 range from $1.6 billion to $2.7 billion.

Looking at the CBO estimate against a backdrop of total Medicare Advantage costs, though, may provide important context.

The increases in spending estimated by CBO may suggest that there would be little change in federal spending as a result of streamlining prior authorization practices. These estimates of increased annual spending of $1.6 billion–$2.7 billion are only a small fraction of the current annual cost of insurer-run Medicare, and they represent an even smaller share of the projected expense.

The federal government last year spent about $350 billion on insurer-run plans, excluding Part D drug plan payments, according to the Medicare Advisory Payment Commission (MedPAC).

As of 2021, about 27 million people were enrolled in these plans, accounting for about 46% of the total Medicare population. Enrollment has doubled since 2010, MedPAC said, and it is expected to continue to grow. By 2027, insurer-run Medicare could cover 50% of the program’s population, a figure that may reach 53% by 2031.

Federal payments to these plans will accelerate in the years ahead as insurers attract more people eligible for Medicare as customers. Payments to these private health plans could rise from an expected $418 billion this year to $940.6 billion by 2031, according to the most recent Medicare trustees report.

Good intentions, poor implementation?

Insurer-run Medicare has long enjoyed deep bipartisan support in Congress. That’s due in part to its potential for reducing spending on what are considered low-value treatments, or ones considered unlikely to provide a significant medical benefit, but Rep. Blumenauer is among the members of Congress who see insurer-run Medicare as a path for preserving the giant federal health program. Traditional Medicare has far fewer restrictions on services, which sometimes opens a path for tests and treatments that offer less value for patients.

“I believe that the way traditional fee-for-service Medicare operates is not sustainable and that Medicare Advantage is one of the tools we can use to demonstrate how we can incentivize value,” Rep. Blumenauer said on the House floor. “But this is only possible when the program operates as intended. I have been deeply concerned about the reports of delays in care” caused by the clunky prior authorization processes.

He highlighted a recent report from the internal watchdog group for the Department of Health & Human Services that raises concerns about denials of appropriate care. About 18% of a set of payment denials examined by the Office of Inspector General of HHS in April actually met Medicare coverage rules and plan billing rules.

“For patients and their families, being told that you need to wait longer for care that your doctor tells you that you need is incredibly frustrating and frightening,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “There’s no comfort to be found in the fact that your insurance company needs time to decide if your doctor is right.”
 

Trends in prior authorization

The CBO report does not provide detail on what kind of medical spending would increase under a streamlined prior authorization process in insurer-run Medicare plans.

From trends reported in prior authorization, though, two factors could be at play in what appear to be relatively small estimated increases in Medicare spending from streamlined prior authorization.

One is the work already underway to create less burdensome electronic systems for these requests, such as the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway initiative run by the trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The other factor could be the number of cases in which prior authorization merely causes delays in treatments and tests and thus simply postpones spending while adding to clinicians’ administrative work.

An analysis of prior authorization requests for dermatologic practices affiliated with the University of Utah may represent an extreme example. In a report published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, researchers described what happened with requests made during 1 month, September 2016.

The approval rate for procedures was 99.6% – 100% (95 of 95) for Mohs surgery, and 96% (130 of 131, with 4 additional cases pending) for excisions. These findings supported calls for simplifying prior authorization procedures, “perhaps first by eliminating unnecessary PAs [prior authorizations] and appeals,” Aaron M. Secrest, MD, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and coauthors wrote in the article.

Still, there is some evidence that insurer-run Medicare policies reduce the use of low-value care.

In a study published in JAMA Health Forum, Emily Boudreau, PhD, of insurer Humana Inc, and coauthors from Tufts University, Boston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia investigated whether insurer-run Medicare could do a better job in reducing the amount of low-value care delivered than the traditional program. They analyzed a set of claims data from 2017 to 2019 for people enrolled in insurer-run and traditional Medicare.

They reported a rate of 23.07 low-value services provided per 100 people in insurer-run Medicare, compared with 25.39 for those in traditional Medicare. Some of the biggest differences reported in the article were in cancer screenings for older people.

As an example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women older than 65 years not be screened for cervical cancer if they have undergone adequate screening in the past and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. There was an annual count of 1.76 screenings for cervical cancer per 100 women older than 65 in the insurer-run Medicare group versus 3.18 for those in traditional Medicare.

The Better Medicare Alliance issued a statement in favor of the House passage of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act.

In it, the group said the measure would “modernize prior authorization while protecting its essential function in facilitating safe, high-value, evidence-based care.” The alliance promotes use of insurer-run Medicare. The board of the Better Medicare Alliance includes executives who serve with firms that run Advantage plans as well as medical organizations and universities.

“With studies showing that up to one-quarter of all health care expenditures are wasted on services with no benefit to the patient, we need a robust, next-generation prior authorization program to deter low-value, and even harmful, care while protecting access to needed treatment and effective therapies,” said A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, in a statement issued by the Better Medicare Alliance. He is a member of the group’s council of scholars.

On the House floor on September 14, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), said he has heard from former colleagues and his medical school classmates that they now spend as much as 40% of their time on administrative work. These distractions from patient care are helping drive physicians away from the practice of medicine.

Still, the internist defended the basic premise of prior authorization while strongly appealing for better systems of handling it.

“Yes, there is a role for prior authorization in limited cases. There is also a role to go back and retrospectively look at how care is being delivered,” Rep. Bera said. “But what is happening today is a travesty. It wasn’t the intention of prior authorization. It is a prior authorization process gone awry.”

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

The path through the U.S. Senate is not yet certain for a bill intended to speed the prior authorization process of insurer-run Medicare Advantage plans, despite the measure having breezed through the House.

House leaders opted to move the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 (HR 3173) without requiring a roll-call vote. The measure was passed on Sept. 14 by a voice vote, an approach used in general with only uncontroversial measures that have broad support. The bill has 191 Democratic and 135 Republican sponsors, representing about three-quarters of the members of the House.

Alicia Ault/Frontline Medical News

“There is no reason that patients should be waiting for medically appropriate care, especially when we know that this can lead to worse outcomes,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said in a Sept. 14 speech on the House floor. “The fundamental promise of Medicare Advantage is undermined when people are delaying care, getting sicker, and ultimately costing Medicare more money.”

Rep. Greg Murphy, MD (R-N.C.), spoke on the House floor that day as well, bringing up cases he has seen in his own urology practice in which prior authorization delays disrupted medical care. One patient wound up in the hospital with abscess after an insurer denied an antibiotic prescription, Rep. Murphy said.

But the Senate appears unlikely at this time to move the prior authorization bill as a standalone measure. Instead, the bill may become part of a larger legislative package focused on health care that the Senate Finance Committee intends to prepare later this year.

The House-passed bill would require insurer-run Medicare plans to respond to expedited requests for prior authorization of services within 24 hours and to other requests within 7 days. This bill also would establish an electronic program for prior authorizations and mandate increased transparency as to how insurers use this tool.
 

CBO: Cost of change would be billions

In seeking to mandate changes in prior authorization, lawmakers likely will need to contend with the issue of a $16 billion cumulative cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. Members of Congress often seek to offset new spending by pairing bills that add to expected costs for the federal government with ones expected to produce savings.

Unlike Rep. Blumenauer, Rep. Murphy, and other backers of the prior authorization streamlining bill, CBO staff estimates that making the mandated changes would raise federal spending, inasmuch as there would be “a greater use of services.”

On Sept. 14, CBO issued a one-page report on the costs of the bill. The CBO report concerns only the bill in question, as is common practice with the office’s estimates.

Prior authorization changes would begin in fiscal 2025 and would add $899 million in spending, or outlays, that year, CBO said. The annual costs from the streamlined prior authorization practices through fiscal 2026 to 2032 range from $1.6 billion to $2.7 billion.

Looking at the CBO estimate against a backdrop of total Medicare Advantage costs, though, may provide important context.

The increases in spending estimated by CBO may suggest that there would be little change in federal spending as a result of streamlining prior authorization practices. These estimates of increased annual spending of $1.6 billion–$2.7 billion are only a small fraction of the current annual cost of insurer-run Medicare, and they represent an even smaller share of the projected expense.

The federal government last year spent about $350 billion on insurer-run plans, excluding Part D drug plan payments, according to the Medicare Advisory Payment Commission (MedPAC).

As of 2021, about 27 million people were enrolled in these plans, accounting for about 46% of the total Medicare population. Enrollment has doubled since 2010, MedPAC said, and it is expected to continue to grow. By 2027, insurer-run Medicare could cover 50% of the program’s population, a figure that may reach 53% by 2031.

Federal payments to these plans will accelerate in the years ahead as insurers attract more people eligible for Medicare as customers. Payments to these private health plans could rise from an expected $418 billion this year to $940.6 billion by 2031, according to the most recent Medicare trustees report.

Good intentions, poor implementation?

Insurer-run Medicare has long enjoyed deep bipartisan support in Congress. That’s due in part to its potential for reducing spending on what are considered low-value treatments, or ones considered unlikely to provide a significant medical benefit, but Rep. Blumenauer is among the members of Congress who see insurer-run Medicare as a path for preserving the giant federal health program. Traditional Medicare has far fewer restrictions on services, which sometimes opens a path for tests and treatments that offer less value for patients.

“I believe that the way traditional fee-for-service Medicare operates is not sustainable and that Medicare Advantage is one of the tools we can use to demonstrate how we can incentivize value,” Rep. Blumenauer said on the House floor. “But this is only possible when the program operates as intended. I have been deeply concerned about the reports of delays in care” caused by the clunky prior authorization processes.

He highlighted a recent report from the internal watchdog group for the Department of Health & Human Services that raises concerns about denials of appropriate care. About 18% of a set of payment denials examined by the Office of Inspector General of HHS in April actually met Medicare coverage rules and plan billing rules.

“For patients and their families, being told that you need to wait longer for care that your doctor tells you that you need is incredibly frustrating and frightening,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “There’s no comfort to be found in the fact that your insurance company needs time to decide if your doctor is right.”
 

Trends in prior authorization

The CBO report does not provide detail on what kind of medical spending would increase under a streamlined prior authorization process in insurer-run Medicare plans.

From trends reported in prior authorization, though, two factors could be at play in what appear to be relatively small estimated increases in Medicare spending from streamlined prior authorization.

One is the work already underway to create less burdensome electronic systems for these requests, such as the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway initiative run by the trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The other factor could be the number of cases in which prior authorization merely causes delays in treatments and tests and thus simply postpones spending while adding to clinicians’ administrative work.

An analysis of prior authorization requests for dermatologic practices affiliated with the University of Utah may represent an extreme example. In a report published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, researchers described what happened with requests made during 1 month, September 2016.

The approval rate for procedures was 99.6% – 100% (95 of 95) for Mohs surgery, and 96% (130 of 131, with 4 additional cases pending) for excisions. These findings supported calls for simplifying prior authorization procedures, “perhaps first by eliminating unnecessary PAs [prior authorizations] and appeals,” Aaron M. Secrest, MD, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and coauthors wrote in the article.

Still, there is some evidence that insurer-run Medicare policies reduce the use of low-value care.

In a study published in JAMA Health Forum, Emily Boudreau, PhD, of insurer Humana Inc, and coauthors from Tufts University, Boston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia investigated whether insurer-run Medicare could do a better job in reducing the amount of low-value care delivered than the traditional program. They analyzed a set of claims data from 2017 to 2019 for people enrolled in insurer-run and traditional Medicare.

They reported a rate of 23.07 low-value services provided per 100 people in insurer-run Medicare, compared with 25.39 for those in traditional Medicare. Some of the biggest differences reported in the article were in cancer screenings for older people.

As an example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women older than 65 years not be screened for cervical cancer if they have undergone adequate screening in the past and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. There was an annual count of 1.76 screenings for cervical cancer per 100 women older than 65 in the insurer-run Medicare group versus 3.18 for those in traditional Medicare.

The Better Medicare Alliance issued a statement in favor of the House passage of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act.

In it, the group said the measure would “modernize prior authorization while protecting its essential function in facilitating safe, high-value, evidence-based care.” The alliance promotes use of insurer-run Medicare. The board of the Better Medicare Alliance includes executives who serve with firms that run Advantage plans as well as medical organizations and universities.

“With studies showing that up to one-quarter of all health care expenditures are wasted on services with no benefit to the patient, we need a robust, next-generation prior authorization program to deter low-value, and even harmful, care while protecting access to needed treatment and effective therapies,” said A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, in a statement issued by the Better Medicare Alliance. He is a member of the group’s council of scholars.

On the House floor on September 14, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), said he has heard from former colleagues and his medical school classmates that they now spend as much as 40% of their time on administrative work. These distractions from patient care are helping drive physicians away from the practice of medicine.

Still, the internist defended the basic premise of prior authorization while strongly appealing for better systems of handling it.

“Yes, there is a role for prior authorization in limited cases. There is also a role to go back and retrospectively look at how care is being delivered,” Rep. Bera said. “But what is happening today is a travesty. It wasn’t the intention of prior authorization. It is a prior authorization process gone awry.”

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

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

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

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

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

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

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

An analysis of postmarketing suicide data shows that the risk of suicide associated with brodalumab use is similar to that of other biologics prescribed for psoriasis.

The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.

Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”

The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.

The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.

For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.

“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.

(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.

“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”

Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”

The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.

Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.

The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.

The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).

Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .

Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.

In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.

The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.

Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.

An analysis of postmarketing suicide data shows that the risk of suicide associated with brodalumab use is similar to that of other biologics prescribed for psoriasis.

The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.

Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”

The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.

The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.

For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.

“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.

(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.

“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”

Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”

The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.

Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.

The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.

The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).

Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .

Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.

In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.

The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.

Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.

An analysis of postmarketing suicide data shows that the risk of suicide associated with brodalumab use is similar to that of other biologics prescribed for psoriasis.

The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.

Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”

The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.

The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.

For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.

“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.

(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.

“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”

Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”

The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.

Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.

The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.

The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).

Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .

Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.

In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.

The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.

Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.