MDedge Rheumatology

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The first year after the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is crucial, with the highest percentage of patients experiencing organ damage. Cardiovascular issues are the second most prevalent after musculoskeletal damage in both early and later stages of SLE.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed organ damage persisting at least 6 months over different stages of lupus in 4219 patients with SLE (mean age, 35.9 years; 89.6% women) from the Spanish Society of Rheumatology Lupus Registry.
• Damage was assessed using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI).
• Longitudinal analysis was conducted globally and by each SDI domain on 1274 patients with recorded damage event dates.
• Follow-up data were available out to 10 years in 1113 patients and to 20 years in 601.

TAKEAWAY:

• New damage was recorded in 20% of the patients with SLE within the first year after diagnosis, with the annual percentage of patients with new damage decreasing to 5% after the first 5 years of follow-up.
• In the first year, musculoskeletal damage was reported by the highest proportion of patients (21%), followed by cardiovascular damage inclusive of cerebrovascular accidents and claudication for 6 months (19%).
• The cardiovascular system remained the second most affected system even during the later stages of the diseases at years 10 and 20 of follow-up (20%-25%).
• Apart from musculoskeletal and cardiovascular damage, patients with lupus also showed renal and ocular damage in the early and later stages of the disease, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study highlights the importance of cardiovascular damage and the need for its prevention during the earliest stages of the disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Irene Altabás-González, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Department, Vigo University Hospital Group, Vigo, Spain. It was published online in Lupus Science & Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective collection of data in the study may have led to missing items; for example, the dates of damage events for the whole cohort were not available. 

DISCLOSURES:

The registry was supported by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology. No specific funding was received for the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The first year after the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is crucial, with the highest percentage of patients experiencing organ damage. Cardiovascular issues are the second most prevalent after musculoskeletal damage in both early and later stages of SLE.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed organ damage persisting at least 6 months over different stages of lupus in 4219 patients with SLE (mean age, 35.9 years; 89.6% women) from the Spanish Society of Rheumatology Lupus Registry.
• Damage was assessed using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI).
• Longitudinal analysis was conducted globally and by each SDI domain on 1274 patients with recorded damage event dates.
• Follow-up data were available out to 10 years in 1113 patients and to 20 years in 601.

TAKEAWAY:

• New damage was recorded in 20% of the patients with SLE within the first year after diagnosis, with the annual percentage of patients with new damage decreasing to 5% after the first 5 years of follow-up.
• In the first year, musculoskeletal damage was reported by the highest proportion of patients (21%), followed by cardiovascular damage inclusive of cerebrovascular accidents and claudication for 6 months (19%).
• The cardiovascular system remained the second most affected system even during the later stages of the diseases at years 10 and 20 of follow-up (20%-25%).
• Apart from musculoskeletal and cardiovascular damage, patients with lupus also showed renal and ocular damage in the early and later stages of the disease, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study highlights the importance of cardiovascular damage and the need for its prevention during the earliest stages of the disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Irene Altabás-González, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Department, Vigo University Hospital Group, Vigo, Spain. It was published online in Lupus Science & Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective collection of data in the study may have led to missing items; for example, the dates of damage events for the whole cohort were not available. 

DISCLOSURES:

The registry was supported by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology. No specific funding was received for the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The first year after the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is crucial, with the highest percentage of patients experiencing organ damage. Cardiovascular issues are the second most prevalent after musculoskeletal damage in both early and later stages of SLE.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed organ damage persisting at least 6 months over different stages of lupus in 4219 patients with SLE (mean age, 35.9 years; 89.6% women) from the Spanish Society of Rheumatology Lupus Registry.
• Damage was assessed using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI).
• Longitudinal analysis was conducted globally and by each SDI domain on 1274 patients with recorded damage event dates.
• Follow-up data were available out to 10 years in 1113 patients and to 20 years in 601.

TAKEAWAY:

• New damage was recorded in 20% of the patients with SLE within the first year after diagnosis, with the annual percentage of patients with new damage decreasing to 5% after the first 5 years of follow-up.
• In the first year, musculoskeletal damage was reported by the highest proportion of patients (21%), followed by cardiovascular damage inclusive of cerebrovascular accidents and claudication for 6 months (19%).
• The cardiovascular system remained the second most affected system even during the later stages of the diseases at years 10 and 20 of follow-up (20%-25%).
• Apart from musculoskeletal and cardiovascular damage, patients with lupus also showed renal and ocular damage in the early and later stages of the disease, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study highlights the importance of cardiovascular damage and the need for its prevention during the earliest stages of the disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Irene Altabás-González, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Department, Vigo University Hospital Group, Vigo, Spain. It was published online in Lupus Science & Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective collection of data in the study may have led to missing items; for example, the dates of damage events for the whole cohort were not available. 

DISCLOSURES:

The registry was supported by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology. No specific funding was received for the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Not a morning person? For patients with fibromyalgia, the answer to that question could be a clue about their treatment response with a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), suggested a new cross-sectional study published in Rheumatology International.

Compared with patients who had 30% or more pain relief after 8 or more weeks on an SNRI (duloxetine, venlafaxine, or milnacipran), those with less pain relief reported rougher mornings and worse sleep overall. Morningness, morning affect, diurnal dysrhythmia, anytime wakeability, overall sleep quality, subjective sleep quality and disturbances, sleep medication use, and daytime dysfunction were all predictors of nonresponse to SNRI treatment.

“The observed chronobiological characteristics of patients resistant to SNRI treatment are important because they can be targeted with adjunctive circadian interventions, ie, morning light therapy, in order to normalize circadian rhythms and improve sleep, and in effect, overcome the resistance to treatment and alleviate [the] patient’s pain,” said study author Anna Julia Krupa, MD, a psychiatrist and research assistant in the Department of Affective Disorders at Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Fibromyalgia symptoms like sleep disturbance, low mood, fatigue, stiffness, cognitive impairment, and anxiety are often interlinked in positive feedback loops, meaning that the presence of one symptom (ie, sleep problems or depression) exacerbates the other (ie, pain or anxiety), Dr. Krupa said. While SNRIs can reduce pain, anxiety, and depression, they don’t directly improve sleep. Sometimes, pain relief smooths out minor sleep problems, but not always.

“Therefore, if circadian rhythm disruptions and sleep problems are significant, they may constitute a factor which limits SNRI effects on pain in people with fibromyalgia,” Dr. Krupa said.

With 60 patients with fibromyalgia (30 responsive to treatment and 30 nonresponsive to treatment) and 30 healthy controls, this was a small study, noted Daniel G. Arkfeld, MD, DDS, a rheumatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. However, “sleep is probably one of the most difficult things in fibromyalgia, and it definitely needs to be targeted.”

Decades of research suggest that important neurochemicals, like growth hormone, are released in deep sleep. “We know that sleep disturbances and time frame and release of neurochemicals [are] all super important in fibromyalgia,” he said.

Side effects of medication could be another factor at play here. As with any drug, the side effects of SNRIs vary widely from person to person, but palpitations, tremulousness, and insomnia are common, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine/rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain & Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“SNRIs are often ‘activating’ because of the increase in norepinephrine,” Dr. Clauw said. “This is often helpful for symptoms such as fatigue and memory problems — but could worsen sleep.”

That’s why he always recommends that patients take an SNRI in the morning, not at night. Try that and the following tips to help patients with fibromyalgia sleep better and feel better, too.

Start with the basics. It’s worth reminding patients about the tried-and-true tips like going to bed and waking up at the same time every day and keeping your bedroom quiet and dark. “Patients should first try ‘sleep hygiene’ strategies,” said Dr. Clauw. “If that doesn’t help then cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia can be very helpful.”

A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CBT for insomnia helped patients with fibromyalgia improve sleep quality, pain, anxiety, and depression compared with nonpharmacologic treatments. And if that doesn’t help? “If need be, they can try nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drugs, eg, tricyclics or gabapentinoids taken at bedtime,” said Dr. Clauw.

Help them fall in love with exercise. A personalized approach to exercise can help patients with fibromyalgia feel better, suggested a study review in Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology. Exercise can also help reset the circadian clock. Morning activity helps night owls get on an earlier schedule, suggested a study review published in Physical Activity and Nutrition. 

Consider yoga, tai chi, or qigong. A study review published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism suggested mind-body and combined exercises help improve sleep for people with fibromyalgia, while aerobic or strength training alone does not. One explanation is that mind-body exercises might do more than other types to tamp down sympathetic-excitatory overactivation in fibromyalgia, the researchers said. Use this handy guide from the European Pain Federation to help you start the exercise conversation.

Talk about sleep alongside other aspects of fibromyalgia. Psychoeducation for fibromyalgia often includes information about the distinction between acute and chronic pain, the nature of fibromyalgia syndrome, disease-contributing factors, safe and effective treatments, symptoms and characteristics, and coping strategies, according to a study review in the journal Behavioral Sciences. “As a psychiatrist and someone who often consults patients with fibromyalgia, I would also add the information about links between pain and mood, anxiety as well as sleep,” said Dr. Krupa.

Try morning light. Use light to shift circadian rhythms, suggested Dr. Krupa. People who struggle in the morning might benefit from 30-60 minutes of morning light therapy immediately after waking using a 10,000-lux light box or light glasses, as suggested by a study review from the University of Michigan.

Help them get off the night shift. “Fibromyalgia patients probably shouldn’t work the night shift and throw their circadian rhythm off,” said Dr. Arkfeld. Depending on a patient’s work and financial circumstances, a job change might not be possible, but consider writing a note to the patient’s employer asking them to switch the patient to the day shift. Dr. Arkfeld said this approach has worked for some of his patients.

Refer them for a sleep study. Many patients with fibromyalgia have obstructive sleep apnea or other sleep disorders that require additional intervention. “Sleep studies are important to kind of define the actual sleep problem that’s occurring as well, whether it’s the stage for interruption of sleep or sleep apnea or wakefulness,” said Dr. Arkfeld.

The study was funded by Jagiellonian University Medical College. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Not a morning person? For patients with fibromyalgia, the answer to that question could be a clue about their treatment response with a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), suggested a new cross-sectional study published in Rheumatology International.

Compared with patients who had 30% or more pain relief after 8 or more weeks on an SNRI (duloxetine, venlafaxine, or milnacipran), those with less pain relief reported rougher mornings and worse sleep overall. Morningness, morning affect, diurnal dysrhythmia, anytime wakeability, overall sleep quality, subjective sleep quality and disturbances, sleep medication use, and daytime dysfunction were all predictors of nonresponse to SNRI treatment.

“The observed chronobiological characteristics of patients resistant to SNRI treatment are important because they can be targeted with adjunctive circadian interventions, ie, morning light therapy, in order to normalize circadian rhythms and improve sleep, and in effect, overcome the resistance to treatment and alleviate [the] patient’s pain,” said study author Anna Julia Krupa, MD, a psychiatrist and research assistant in the Department of Affective Disorders at Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Fibromyalgia symptoms like sleep disturbance, low mood, fatigue, stiffness, cognitive impairment, and anxiety are often interlinked in positive feedback loops, meaning that the presence of one symptom (ie, sleep problems or depression) exacerbates the other (ie, pain or anxiety), Dr. Krupa said. While SNRIs can reduce pain, anxiety, and depression, they don’t directly improve sleep. Sometimes, pain relief smooths out minor sleep problems, but not always.

“Therefore, if circadian rhythm disruptions and sleep problems are significant, they may constitute a factor which limits SNRI effects on pain in people with fibromyalgia,” Dr. Krupa said.

With 60 patients with fibromyalgia (30 responsive to treatment and 30 nonresponsive to treatment) and 30 healthy controls, this was a small study, noted Daniel G. Arkfeld, MD, DDS, a rheumatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. However, “sleep is probably one of the most difficult things in fibromyalgia, and it definitely needs to be targeted.”

Decades of research suggest that important neurochemicals, like growth hormone, are released in deep sleep. “We know that sleep disturbances and time frame and release of neurochemicals [are] all super important in fibromyalgia,” he said.

Side effects of medication could be another factor at play here. As with any drug, the side effects of SNRIs vary widely from person to person, but palpitations, tremulousness, and insomnia are common, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine/rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain & Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“SNRIs are often ‘activating’ because of the increase in norepinephrine,” Dr. Clauw said. “This is often helpful for symptoms such as fatigue and memory problems — but could worsen sleep.”

That’s why he always recommends that patients take an SNRI in the morning, not at night. Try that and the following tips to help patients with fibromyalgia sleep better and feel better, too.

Start with the basics. It’s worth reminding patients about the tried-and-true tips like going to bed and waking up at the same time every day and keeping your bedroom quiet and dark. “Patients should first try ‘sleep hygiene’ strategies,” said Dr. Clauw. “If that doesn’t help then cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia can be very helpful.”

A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CBT for insomnia helped patients with fibromyalgia improve sleep quality, pain, anxiety, and depression compared with nonpharmacologic treatments. And if that doesn’t help? “If need be, they can try nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drugs, eg, tricyclics or gabapentinoids taken at bedtime,” said Dr. Clauw.

Help them fall in love with exercise. A personalized approach to exercise can help patients with fibromyalgia feel better, suggested a study review in Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology. Exercise can also help reset the circadian clock. Morning activity helps night owls get on an earlier schedule, suggested a study review published in Physical Activity and Nutrition. 

Consider yoga, tai chi, or qigong. A study review published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism suggested mind-body and combined exercises help improve sleep for people with fibromyalgia, while aerobic or strength training alone does not. One explanation is that mind-body exercises might do more than other types to tamp down sympathetic-excitatory overactivation in fibromyalgia, the researchers said. Use this handy guide from the European Pain Federation to help you start the exercise conversation.

Talk about sleep alongside other aspects of fibromyalgia. Psychoeducation for fibromyalgia often includes information about the distinction between acute and chronic pain, the nature of fibromyalgia syndrome, disease-contributing factors, safe and effective treatments, symptoms and characteristics, and coping strategies, according to a study review in the journal Behavioral Sciences. “As a psychiatrist and someone who often consults patients with fibromyalgia, I would also add the information about links between pain and mood, anxiety as well as sleep,” said Dr. Krupa.

Try morning light. Use light to shift circadian rhythms, suggested Dr. Krupa. People who struggle in the morning might benefit from 30-60 minutes of morning light therapy immediately after waking using a 10,000-lux light box or light glasses, as suggested by a study review from the University of Michigan.

Help them get off the night shift. “Fibromyalgia patients probably shouldn’t work the night shift and throw their circadian rhythm off,” said Dr. Arkfeld. Depending on a patient’s work and financial circumstances, a job change might not be possible, but consider writing a note to the patient’s employer asking them to switch the patient to the day shift. Dr. Arkfeld said this approach has worked for some of his patients.

Refer them for a sleep study. Many patients with fibromyalgia have obstructive sleep apnea or other sleep disorders that require additional intervention. “Sleep studies are important to kind of define the actual sleep problem that’s occurring as well, whether it’s the stage for interruption of sleep or sleep apnea or wakefulness,” said Dr. Arkfeld.

The study was funded by Jagiellonian University Medical College. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Not a morning person? For patients with fibromyalgia, the answer to that question could be a clue about their treatment response with a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), suggested a new cross-sectional study published in Rheumatology International.

Compared with patients who had 30% or more pain relief after 8 or more weeks on an SNRI (duloxetine, venlafaxine, or milnacipran), those with less pain relief reported rougher mornings and worse sleep overall. Morningness, morning affect, diurnal dysrhythmia, anytime wakeability, overall sleep quality, subjective sleep quality and disturbances, sleep medication use, and daytime dysfunction were all predictors of nonresponse to SNRI treatment.

“The observed chronobiological characteristics of patients resistant to SNRI treatment are important because they can be targeted with adjunctive circadian interventions, ie, morning light therapy, in order to normalize circadian rhythms and improve sleep, and in effect, overcome the resistance to treatment and alleviate [the] patient’s pain,” said study author Anna Julia Krupa, MD, a psychiatrist and research assistant in the Department of Affective Disorders at Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Fibromyalgia symptoms like sleep disturbance, low mood, fatigue, stiffness, cognitive impairment, and anxiety are often interlinked in positive feedback loops, meaning that the presence of one symptom (ie, sleep problems or depression) exacerbates the other (ie, pain or anxiety), Dr. Krupa said. While SNRIs can reduce pain, anxiety, and depression, they don’t directly improve sleep. Sometimes, pain relief smooths out minor sleep problems, but not always.

“Therefore, if circadian rhythm disruptions and sleep problems are significant, they may constitute a factor which limits SNRI effects on pain in people with fibromyalgia,” Dr. Krupa said.

With 60 patients with fibromyalgia (30 responsive to treatment and 30 nonresponsive to treatment) and 30 healthy controls, this was a small study, noted Daniel G. Arkfeld, MD, DDS, a rheumatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. However, “sleep is probably one of the most difficult things in fibromyalgia, and it definitely needs to be targeted.”

Decades of research suggest that important neurochemicals, like growth hormone, are released in deep sleep. “We know that sleep disturbances and time frame and release of neurochemicals [are] all super important in fibromyalgia,” he said.

Side effects of medication could be another factor at play here. As with any drug, the side effects of SNRIs vary widely from person to person, but palpitations, tremulousness, and insomnia are common, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine/rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain & Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“SNRIs are often ‘activating’ because of the increase in norepinephrine,” Dr. Clauw said. “This is often helpful for symptoms such as fatigue and memory problems — but could worsen sleep.”

That’s why he always recommends that patients take an SNRI in the morning, not at night. Try that and the following tips to help patients with fibromyalgia sleep better and feel better, too.

Start with the basics. It’s worth reminding patients about the tried-and-true tips like going to bed and waking up at the same time every day and keeping your bedroom quiet and dark. “Patients should first try ‘sleep hygiene’ strategies,” said Dr. Clauw. “If that doesn’t help then cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia can be very helpful.”

A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CBT for insomnia helped patients with fibromyalgia improve sleep quality, pain, anxiety, and depression compared with nonpharmacologic treatments. And if that doesn’t help? “If need be, they can try nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drugs, eg, tricyclics or gabapentinoids taken at bedtime,” said Dr. Clauw.

Help them fall in love with exercise. A personalized approach to exercise can help patients with fibromyalgia feel better, suggested a study review in Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology. Exercise can also help reset the circadian clock. Morning activity helps night owls get on an earlier schedule, suggested a study review published in Physical Activity and Nutrition. 

Consider yoga, tai chi, or qigong. A study review published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism suggested mind-body and combined exercises help improve sleep for people with fibromyalgia, while aerobic or strength training alone does not. One explanation is that mind-body exercises might do more than other types to tamp down sympathetic-excitatory overactivation in fibromyalgia, the researchers said. Use this handy guide from the European Pain Federation to help you start the exercise conversation.

Talk about sleep alongside other aspects of fibromyalgia. Psychoeducation for fibromyalgia often includes information about the distinction between acute and chronic pain, the nature of fibromyalgia syndrome, disease-contributing factors, safe and effective treatments, symptoms and characteristics, and coping strategies, according to a study review in the journal Behavioral Sciences. “As a psychiatrist and someone who often consults patients with fibromyalgia, I would also add the information about links between pain and mood, anxiety as well as sleep,” said Dr. Krupa.

Try morning light. Use light to shift circadian rhythms, suggested Dr. Krupa. People who struggle in the morning might benefit from 30-60 minutes of morning light therapy immediately after waking using a 10,000-lux light box or light glasses, as suggested by a study review from the University of Michigan.

Help them get off the night shift. “Fibromyalgia patients probably shouldn’t work the night shift and throw their circadian rhythm off,” said Dr. Arkfeld. Depending on a patient’s work and financial circumstances, a job change might not be possible, but consider writing a note to the patient’s employer asking them to switch the patient to the day shift. Dr. Arkfeld said this approach has worked for some of his patients.

Refer them for a sleep study. Many patients with fibromyalgia have obstructive sleep apnea or other sleep disorders that require additional intervention. “Sleep studies are important to kind of define the actual sleep problem that’s occurring as well, whether it’s the stage for interruption of sleep or sleep apnea or wakefulness,” said Dr. Arkfeld.

The study was funded by Jagiellonian University Medical College. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The antimetabolite and immunosuppressant methotrexate, taken orally and in addition to usual analgesia, alleviates pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a phase 3 randomized controlled trial among 155 patients in the United Kingdom with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis and an inadequate response to their current medication (PROMOTE trial).
• Patients were assigned to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation from 10 to 25 mg) or placebo for 12 months, added to usual analgesia.
• The main outcome was average knee pain at 6 months on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, mean scores for knee pain had decreased by 1.3 points in the methotrexate group and 0.6 points in the placebo group (difference by intention to treat, 0.79 points; P = .030).
• The former also saw greater benefit in terms of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores for stiffness (difference, 0.60 points; P = .045) and physical function (difference, 5.01 points; P = .008).
• Differences between groups were no longer significant at 12 months.
• Benefit of methotrexate appeared to be dose related.
• The groups were similar with respect to nausea and diarrhea; four serious adverse events (two per group) were deemed unrelated to study treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Further work is required to understand adequate methotrexate dosing, whether benefits are greater in those with elevated systemic inflammation levels, and to consider cost-effectiveness before introducing this therapy for a potentially large population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah R. Kingsbury, PhD, University of Leeds and National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, England, and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a decrease in methotrexate dose between 6 and 12 months, nonallowance of switching to subcutaneous drug for intolerance, and a lack of assessment of the effectiveness of blinding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Versus Arthritis, a charity that supports people with arthritis. Some authors reported affiliations with Versus Arthritis and/or companies that develop drugs for arthritis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The antimetabolite and immunosuppressant methotrexate, taken orally and in addition to usual analgesia, alleviates pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a phase 3 randomized controlled trial among 155 patients in the United Kingdom with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis and an inadequate response to their current medication (PROMOTE trial).
• Patients were assigned to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation from 10 to 25 mg) or placebo for 12 months, added to usual analgesia.
• The main outcome was average knee pain at 6 months on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, mean scores for knee pain had decreased by 1.3 points in the methotrexate group and 0.6 points in the placebo group (difference by intention to treat, 0.79 points; P = .030).
• The former also saw greater benefit in terms of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores for stiffness (difference, 0.60 points; P = .045) and physical function (difference, 5.01 points; P = .008).
• Differences between groups were no longer significant at 12 months.
• Benefit of methotrexate appeared to be dose related.
• The groups were similar with respect to nausea and diarrhea; four serious adverse events (two per group) were deemed unrelated to study treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Further work is required to understand adequate methotrexate dosing, whether benefits are greater in those with elevated systemic inflammation levels, and to consider cost-effectiveness before introducing this therapy for a potentially large population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah R. Kingsbury, PhD, University of Leeds and National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, England, and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a decrease in methotrexate dose between 6 and 12 months, nonallowance of switching to subcutaneous drug for intolerance, and a lack of assessment of the effectiveness of blinding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Versus Arthritis, a charity that supports people with arthritis. Some authors reported affiliations with Versus Arthritis and/or companies that develop drugs for arthritis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The antimetabolite and immunosuppressant methotrexate, taken orally and in addition to usual analgesia, alleviates pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a phase 3 randomized controlled trial among 155 patients in the United Kingdom with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis and an inadequate response to their current medication (PROMOTE trial).
• Patients were assigned to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation from 10 to 25 mg) or placebo for 12 months, added to usual analgesia.
• The main outcome was average knee pain at 6 months on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, mean scores for knee pain had decreased by 1.3 points in the methotrexate group and 0.6 points in the placebo group (difference by intention to treat, 0.79 points; P = .030).
• The former also saw greater benefit in terms of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores for stiffness (difference, 0.60 points; P = .045) and physical function (difference, 5.01 points; P = .008).
• Differences between groups were no longer significant at 12 months.
• Benefit of methotrexate appeared to be dose related.
• The groups were similar with respect to nausea and diarrhea; four serious adverse events (two per group) were deemed unrelated to study treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Further work is required to understand adequate methotrexate dosing, whether benefits are greater in those with elevated systemic inflammation levels, and to consider cost-effectiveness before introducing this therapy for a potentially large population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah R. Kingsbury, PhD, University of Leeds and National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, England, and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a decrease in methotrexate dose between 6 and 12 months, nonallowance of switching to subcutaneous drug for intolerance, and a lack of assessment of the effectiveness of blinding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Versus Arthritis, a charity that supports people with arthritis. Some authors reported affiliations with Versus Arthritis and/or companies that develop drugs for arthritis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and inflammatory markers are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) nonusers but not in users, suggesting that biologics may reduce cardiovascular risk in RA even if remission is not achieved.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reported reduced cardiovascular risk in patients with RA who respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors but not in nonresponders, highlighting the importance of controlling inflammation for cardiovascular protection.
• Researchers assessed whether bDMARDs modify the impact of disease activity and systemic inflammation on cardiovascular risk in 4370 patients (mean age, 55 years) with RA without cardiovascular disease from a 10-country observational cohort.
• The severity of RA disease activity was assessed using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on CRP (DAS28-CRP).
• Endpoints were time to first MACE — a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke — and time to first ischemic cardiovascular event (iCVE) — a composite of MACE plus revascularization, angina, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• The interaction between use of bDMARD and DAS28-CRP (P = .017) or CRP (P = .011) was significant for MACE.
• Each unit increase in DAS28-CRP increased the risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; P = .002) but not in users.
• The per log unit increase in CRP was associated with a risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (HR, 1.16; P = .009) but not in users.
• No interaction was observed between bDMARD use and DAS28-CRP or CRP for the iCVE risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“This may indicate additional bDMARD-specific benefits directly on arterial wall inflammation and atherosclerotic plaque anatomy, stability, and biology, independently of systemic inflammation,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by George Athanasios Karpouzas, MD, The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, was published online in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with a particular interest in RA-associated cardiovascular disease were included, which may have introduced referral bias and affected the generalizability of the findings. Standard definitions were used for selected outcomes; however, differences in the reporting of outcomes may be plausible. Some patients were evaluated prospectively, while others were evaluated retrospectively, leading to differences in surveillance.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and inflammatory markers are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) nonusers but not in users, suggesting that biologics may reduce cardiovascular risk in RA even if remission is not achieved.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reported reduced cardiovascular risk in patients with RA who respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors but not in nonresponders, highlighting the importance of controlling inflammation for cardiovascular protection.
• Researchers assessed whether bDMARDs modify the impact of disease activity and systemic inflammation on cardiovascular risk in 4370 patients (mean age, 55 years) with RA without cardiovascular disease from a 10-country observational cohort.
• The severity of RA disease activity was assessed using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on CRP (DAS28-CRP).
• Endpoints were time to first MACE — a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke — and time to first ischemic cardiovascular event (iCVE) — a composite of MACE plus revascularization, angina, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• The interaction between use of bDMARD and DAS28-CRP (P = .017) or CRP (P = .011) was significant for MACE.
• Each unit increase in DAS28-CRP increased the risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; P = .002) but not in users.
• The per log unit increase in CRP was associated with a risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (HR, 1.16; P = .009) but not in users.
• No interaction was observed between bDMARD use and DAS28-CRP or CRP for the iCVE risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“This may indicate additional bDMARD-specific benefits directly on arterial wall inflammation and atherosclerotic plaque anatomy, stability, and biology, independently of systemic inflammation,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by George Athanasios Karpouzas, MD, The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, was published online in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with a particular interest in RA-associated cardiovascular disease were included, which may have introduced referral bias and affected the generalizability of the findings. Standard definitions were used for selected outcomes; however, differences in the reporting of outcomes may be plausible. Some patients were evaluated prospectively, while others were evaluated retrospectively, leading to differences in surveillance.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and inflammatory markers are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) nonusers but not in users, suggesting that biologics may reduce cardiovascular risk in RA even if remission is not achieved.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reported reduced cardiovascular risk in patients with RA who respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors but not in nonresponders, highlighting the importance of controlling inflammation for cardiovascular protection.
• Researchers assessed whether bDMARDs modify the impact of disease activity and systemic inflammation on cardiovascular risk in 4370 patients (mean age, 55 years) with RA without cardiovascular disease from a 10-country observational cohort.
• The severity of RA disease activity was assessed using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on CRP (DAS28-CRP).
• Endpoints were time to first MACE — a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke — and time to first ischemic cardiovascular event (iCVE) — a composite of MACE plus revascularization, angina, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• The interaction between use of bDMARD and DAS28-CRP (P = .017) or CRP (P = .011) was significant for MACE.
• Each unit increase in DAS28-CRP increased the risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; P = .002) but not in users.
• The per log unit increase in CRP was associated with a risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (HR, 1.16; P = .009) but not in users.
• No interaction was observed between bDMARD use and DAS28-CRP or CRP for the iCVE risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“This may indicate additional bDMARD-specific benefits directly on arterial wall inflammation and atherosclerotic plaque anatomy, stability, and biology, independently of systemic inflammation,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by George Athanasios Karpouzas, MD, The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, was published online in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with a particular interest in RA-associated cardiovascular disease were included, which may have introduced referral bias and affected the generalizability of the findings. Standard definitions were used for selected outcomes; however, differences in the reporting of outcomes may be plausible. Some patients were evaluated prospectively, while others were evaluated retrospectively, leading to differences in surveillance.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TORONTO — When it comes to using artificial intelligence (AI) in your practice, pediatric dermatologist Albert Yan, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, suggests that dermatologists “just jump in” and become familiar with the various AI models.

He reminds doctors that many of their colleagues and patients and their families are already using these systems, “and you don’t want to be left behind.”

In an interview following his presentation on AI at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD), Dr. Yan discussed his tips for using AI.
 

Changing Fast 

From the outset, most generative AI systems have been very good at processing language — for example, generating letters of medical necessity and summarizing disease processes into lay terms. But now they’re becoming “truly multimodal,” said Dr. Yan. “You can enter images; you could have it process audio; you can even start to have it refine video.”

To get started, he recommends signing up for a free account with ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and/or Microsoft Copilot. “To make the best choice, you have to try them out yourself because they each have their own kind of flavor and strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Yan.

Personally, he finds that ChatGPT is the most versatile, Gemini perhaps a little better in terms of image generation, and Perplexity probably the best at references because it was designed as an online library.

Once you figure out which platforms you prefer, consider signing up for a premium subscription, which is typically month to month and can be canceled at any time, Dr. Yan said. “This will allow you to get the most out of the AI model.”

As these AI systems are based on large language models, they are excellent at text, Dr. Yan noted. He suggests asking one to generate a letter or patient instruction sheet. “If you have a premium model, give it a PDF to summarize an article or take a photo of something that you want its opinion on.”

Privacy Critical

Always pay attention to privacy issues and avoid entering any private health information that would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), he said.

“We have to be very careful about how we interact with AI,” said Dr. Yan. “We can’t be posting private patient health information into these systems, no matter how useful these systems are.” Many academic institutions are creating “walled gardens” — private areas of AI access that don’t allow patient information to “leak out,” he said. “These AI models may have HIPAA protections in place and come with specific guidelines of use.”

The AI “scribe,” which helps with electronic health record documentation, is one of the most useful tools for clinicians, he said. He referred to a recent study showing that an AI scribe saved users an average of 1 hour at the keyboard every day, and a small patient survey showing 71% reported that it led to spending more time with their physician.

When entering requests into a prompt line with an AI system, Dr. Yan stressed that these prompts need to be clear and concise. For a complicated calculation or multistep problem, try adding the words “let’s do this step by step,” he said. “This is a technique invoking a ‘chain of thought’ that allows the system to enhance its accuracy when solving problems.”

If the response is not satisfactory, try being more detailed in the request, he advised, and consider giving the system examples of what you’re looking for and telling it what you don’t want in the output.

“For instance, if you’re asking for a differential diagnosis of rashes that affect the hands and feet, you can stipulate that you only want rashes that are vesicular or that arise in neonates, so you can get a more focused answer,” said Dr. Yan.

If there are “long-winded verbose” responses, add the phrase “be concise,” and it will shorten the response by about 50%, he added.
 

AI Hallucinations

Dr. Yan broached an issue that occasionally comes up, AI hallucinations, which refer to inaccurate or misleading responses on the basis of incomplete training or intrinsic biases within the model. He pointed to the case of a doctor discussing issues related to a patient’s hands, feet, and mouth, which the AI-generated model summarized as “the patient being diagnosed with hand, foot, and mouth disease.”

Another example he provided was a request to generate a letter of medical necessity for using ustekinumab (Stelara) for treating hidradenitis suppurative in a child that included references for its effectiveness and safety in children. The AI system generated “false references that sounded like they should be real because the authors are often people who have written in that field or on that subject,” said Dr. Yan.

When pressed, the system did acknowledge the references were hypothetical but were meant to illustrate the types of studies that would typically support the use of this drug in pediatric patients with HS. “ It’s well meaning, in the sense that it’s trying to help you achieve your goals using this training system,” said Dr. Yan.

“If you’re skeptical about a response, double-check the answer with a Google search or run the response through another AI [tool] asking it to check if the response is accurate,” he added.

While AI systems won’t replace the clinician, they are continuing to improve and becoming more sophisticated. Dr. Yan advises keeping up with emerging developments and engaging and adapting the most appropriate AI tool for an individual clinician’s work.

Asked to comment on the presentation at the SPD meeting, Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who, like other doctors, is increasingly testing AI, said she foresees a time when AI scribes fully replace humans for completing tasks during patient interactions.

“The hope is that if the AI scribes get good enough, we can just open our phone, have them translate the interaction, and create the notes for us.”

While she likes the idea of using ChatGPT to help with tasks like letters of recommendation for medications, Dr. Yan’s comments reiterated the importance of “checking and double-checking ChatGPT because it’s not correct all the time.” She particularly welcomed the advice “that we can just go back and ask it again to clarify, and that may improve its answers.”

Dr. Yan’s disclosures included an investment portfolio that includes companies working in the AI space, including Google, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, and Arm. Dr. Maguiness had no relevant disclosures.

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

TORONTO — When it comes to using artificial intelligence (AI) in your practice, pediatric dermatologist Albert Yan, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, suggests that dermatologists “just jump in” and become familiar with the various AI models.

He reminds doctors that many of their colleagues and patients and their families are already using these systems, “and you don’t want to be left behind.”

In an interview following his presentation on AI at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD), Dr. Yan discussed his tips for using AI.
 

Changing Fast 

From the outset, most generative AI systems have been very good at processing language — for example, generating letters of medical necessity and summarizing disease processes into lay terms. But now they’re becoming “truly multimodal,” said Dr. Yan. “You can enter images; you could have it process audio; you can even start to have it refine video.”

To get started, he recommends signing up for a free account with ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and/or Microsoft Copilot. “To make the best choice, you have to try them out yourself because they each have their own kind of flavor and strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Yan.

Personally, he finds that ChatGPT is the most versatile, Gemini perhaps a little better in terms of image generation, and Perplexity probably the best at references because it was designed as an online library.

Once you figure out which platforms you prefer, consider signing up for a premium subscription, which is typically month to month and can be canceled at any time, Dr. Yan said. “This will allow you to get the most out of the AI model.”

As these AI systems are based on large language models, they are excellent at text, Dr. Yan noted. He suggests asking one to generate a letter or patient instruction sheet. “If you have a premium model, give it a PDF to summarize an article or take a photo of something that you want its opinion on.”

Privacy Critical

Always pay attention to privacy issues and avoid entering any private health information that would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), he said.

“We have to be very careful about how we interact with AI,” said Dr. Yan. “We can’t be posting private patient health information into these systems, no matter how useful these systems are.” Many academic institutions are creating “walled gardens” — private areas of AI access that don’t allow patient information to “leak out,” he said. “These AI models may have HIPAA protections in place and come with specific guidelines of use.”

The AI “scribe,” which helps with electronic health record documentation, is one of the most useful tools for clinicians, he said. He referred to a recent study showing that an AI scribe saved users an average of 1 hour at the keyboard every day, and a small patient survey showing 71% reported that it led to spending more time with their physician.

When entering requests into a prompt line with an AI system, Dr. Yan stressed that these prompts need to be clear and concise. For a complicated calculation or multistep problem, try adding the words “let’s do this step by step,” he said. “This is a technique invoking a ‘chain of thought’ that allows the system to enhance its accuracy when solving problems.”

If the response is not satisfactory, try being more detailed in the request, he advised, and consider giving the system examples of what you’re looking for and telling it what you don’t want in the output.

“For instance, if you’re asking for a differential diagnosis of rashes that affect the hands and feet, you can stipulate that you only want rashes that are vesicular or that arise in neonates, so you can get a more focused answer,” said Dr. Yan.

If there are “long-winded verbose” responses, add the phrase “be concise,” and it will shorten the response by about 50%, he added.
 

AI Hallucinations

Dr. Yan broached an issue that occasionally comes up, AI hallucinations, which refer to inaccurate or misleading responses on the basis of incomplete training or intrinsic biases within the model. He pointed to the case of a doctor discussing issues related to a patient’s hands, feet, and mouth, which the AI-generated model summarized as “the patient being diagnosed with hand, foot, and mouth disease.”

Another example he provided was a request to generate a letter of medical necessity for using ustekinumab (Stelara) for treating hidradenitis suppurative in a child that included references for its effectiveness and safety in children. The AI system generated “false references that sounded like they should be real because the authors are often people who have written in that field or on that subject,” said Dr. Yan.

When pressed, the system did acknowledge the references were hypothetical but were meant to illustrate the types of studies that would typically support the use of this drug in pediatric patients with HS. “ It’s well meaning, in the sense that it’s trying to help you achieve your goals using this training system,” said Dr. Yan.

“If you’re skeptical about a response, double-check the answer with a Google search or run the response through another AI [tool] asking it to check if the response is accurate,” he added.

While AI systems won’t replace the clinician, they are continuing to improve and becoming more sophisticated. Dr. Yan advises keeping up with emerging developments and engaging and adapting the most appropriate AI tool for an individual clinician’s work.

Asked to comment on the presentation at the SPD meeting, Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who, like other doctors, is increasingly testing AI, said she foresees a time when AI scribes fully replace humans for completing tasks during patient interactions.

“The hope is that if the AI scribes get good enough, we can just open our phone, have them translate the interaction, and create the notes for us.”

While she likes the idea of using ChatGPT to help with tasks like letters of recommendation for medications, Dr. Yan’s comments reiterated the importance of “checking and double-checking ChatGPT because it’s not correct all the time.” She particularly welcomed the advice “that we can just go back and ask it again to clarify, and that may improve its answers.”

Dr. Yan’s disclosures included an investment portfolio that includes companies working in the AI space, including Google, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, and Arm. Dr. Maguiness had no relevant disclosures.

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

TORONTO — When it comes to using artificial intelligence (AI) in your practice, pediatric dermatologist Albert Yan, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, suggests that dermatologists “just jump in” and become familiar with the various AI models.

He reminds doctors that many of their colleagues and patients and their families are already using these systems, “and you don’t want to be left behind.”

In an interview following his presentation on AI at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD), Dr. Yan discussed his tips for using AI.
 

Changing Fast 

From the outset, most generative AI systems have been very good at processing language — for example, generating letters of medical necessity and summarizing disease processes into lay terms. But now they’re becoming “truly multimodal,” said Dr. Yan. “You can enter images; you could have it process audio; you can even start to have it refine video.”

To get started, he recommends signing up for a free account with ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and/or Microsoft Copilot. “To make the best choice, you have to try them out yourself because they each have their own kind of flavor and strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Yan.

Personally, he finds that ChatGPT is the most versatile, Gemini perhaps a little better in terms of image generation, and Perplexity probably the best at references because it was designed as an online library.

Once you figure out which platforms you prefer, consider signing up for a premium subscription, which is typically month to month and can be canceled at any time, Dr. Yan said. “This will allow you to get the most out of the AI model.”

As these AI systems are based on large language models, they are excellent at text, Dr. Yan noted. He suggests asking one to generate a letter or patient instruction sheet. “If you have a premium model, give it a PDF to summarize an article or take a photo of something that you want its opinion on.”

Privacy Critical

Always pay attention to privacy issues and avoid entering any private health information that would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), he said.

“We have to be very careful about how we interact with AI,” said Dr. Yan. “We can’t be posting private patient health information into these systems, no matter how useful these systems are.” Many academic institutions are creating “walled gardens” — private areas of AI access that don’t allow patient information to “leak out,” he said. “These AI models may have HIPAA protections in place and come with specific guidelines of use.”

The AI “scribe,” which helps with electronic health record documentation, is one of the most useful tools for clinicians, he said. He referred to a recent study showing that an AI scribe saved users an average of 1 hour at the keyboard every day, and a small patient survey showing 71% reported that it led to spending more time with their physician.

When entering requests into a prompt line with an AI system, Dr. Yan stressed that these prompts need to be clear and concise. For a complicated calculation or multistep problem, try adding the words “let’s do this step by step,” he said. “This is a technique invoking a ‘chain of thought’ that allows the system to enhance its accuracy when solving problems.”

If the response is not satisfactory, try being more detailed in the request, he advised, and consider giving the system examples of what you’re looking for and telling it what you don’t want in the output.

“For instance, if you’re asking for a differential diagnosis of rashes that affect the hands and feet, you can stipulate that you only want rashes that are vesicular or that arise in neonates, so you can get a more focused answer,” said Dr. Yan.

If there are “long-winded verbose” responses, add the phrase “be concise,” and it will shorten the response by about 50%, he added.
 

AI Hallucinations

Dr. Yan broached an issue that occasionally comes up, AI hallucinations, which refer to inaccurate or misleading responses on the basis of incomplete training or intrinsic biases within the model. He pointed to the case of a doctor discussing issues related to a patient’s hands, feet, and mouth, which the AI-generated model summarized as “the patient being diagnosed with hand, foot, and mouth disease.”

Another example he provided was a request to generate a letter of medical necessity for using ustekinumab (Stelara) for treating hidradenitis suppurative in a child that included references for its effectiveness and safety in children. The AI system generated “false references that sounded like they should be real because the authors are often people who have written in that field or on that subject,” said Dr. Yan.

When pressed, the system did acknowledge the references were hypothetical but were meant to illustrate the types of studies that would typically support the use of this drug in pediatric patients with HS. “ It’s well meaning, in the sense that it’s trying to help you achieve your goals using this training system,” said Dr. Yan.

“If you’re skeptical about a response, double-check the answer with a Google search or run the response through another AI [tool] asking it to check if the response is accurate,” he added.

While AI systems won’t replace the clinician, they are continuing to improve and becoming more sophisticated. Dr. Yan advises keeping up with emerging developments and engaging and adapting the most appropriate AI tool for an individual clinician’s work.

Asked to comment on the presentation at the SPD meeting, Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who, like other doctors, is increasingly testing AI, said she foresees a time when AI scribes fully replace humans for completing tasks during patient interactions.

“The hope is that if the AI scribes get good enough, we can just open our phone, have them translate the interaction, and create the notes for us.”

While she likes the idea of using ChatGPT to help with tasks like letters of recommendation for medications, Dr. Yan’s comments reiterated the importance of “checking and double-checking ChatGPT because it’s not correct all the time.” She particularly welcomed the advice “that we can just go back and ask it again to clarify, and that may improve its answers.”

Dr. Yan’s disclosures included an investment portfolio that includes companies working in the AI space, including Google, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, and Arm. Dr. Maguiness had no relevant disclosures.

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

Potentially life-threatening cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) are associated with commonly prescribed oral antibiotics, according to a large, population-based, nested case-control study of older adults, spanning two decades.

The findings, published online in JAMA, “underscore the importance of judicious prescribing, with preferential use of antibiotics associated with a lower risk when clinically appropriate,” noted senior author David Juurlink, MD, PhD, professor of medicine; pediatrics; and health policy, management and evaluation at the University of Toronto, and head of the Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Division at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, also in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“We hope our study raises awareness about the importance of drug allergy and gains support for future studies to improve drug allergy care,” lead author Erika Lee, MD, clinical immunology and allergy lecturer at the University of Toronto’s Drug Allergy Clinic, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, said in an interview. “It is important to recognize symptoms and signs of a severe drug rash and promptly stop culprit drugs to prevent worsening reaction.”

Serious cADRs are “a group of rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reactions involving the skin and, frequently, internal organs,” the authors wrote. “Typically delayed in onset, these reactions include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) — the most severe cADR, which has a reported mortality of 20%-40%,” they noted.

Speculation Without Data

Although it has been speculated that some oral antibiotics are more likely than others to be associated with serious cADRs, there have been no population-based studies examining this, they added.

The study included adults aged 66 years or older and used administrative health databases in Ontario, spanning from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2022. Data on antibiotic use were taken from the Ontario Drug Benefit database. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) National Ambulatory Care Reporting System was used to obtain data on emergency department (ED) visits for cADRs, while the CIHI Discharge Abstract Database was used to identify hospitalizations for cADRs. Finally, demographic information and outpatient healthcare utilization data were obtained from the Registered Persons Database and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan database, respectively.

A cohort of 21,758 older adults (median age, 75 years; 64.1% women) who had an ED visit or hospitalization for serious cADRs within 60 days of receiving antibiotic therapy was matched by age and sex with 87,025 antibiotic-treated controls who did not have a cutaneous reaction.

The median duration of antibiotic prescription was 7 days among cases and controls, and among the cases, the median latency period between antibiotic prescriptions and hospital visits for cADRs was 14 days. Most of the case patients went to the ED only (86.9%), and the rest were hospitalized.

The most commonly prescribed antibiotic class was penicillins (28.9%), followed by cephalosporins (18.2%), fluoroquinolones (16.5%), macrolides (14.8%), nitrofurantoin (8.6%), and sulfonamides (6.2%). Less commonly used antibiotics (“other” antibiotics) accounted for 6.9%.

Macrolide antibiotics were used as the reference because they are rarely associated with serious cADRs, noted the authors, and the multivariable analysis, adjusted for risk factors associated with serious cADRs, including malignancy, chronic liver disease, chronic kidney disease, and HIV.

After multivariable adjustment, relative to macrolides, sulfonamides were most strongly associated with serious cADRs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9) but so were all other antibiotic classes, including cephalosporins (aOR, 2.6), “other” antibiotics (aOR, 2.3), nitrofurantoin (aOR, 2.2), penicillins (aOR, 1.4), and fluoroquinolones (aOR,1.3).

In the secondary analysis, the crude rate of ED visits or hospitalizations for cADRs was highest for cephalosporins (4.92 per 1000 prescriptions), followed by sulfonamides (3.22 per 1000 prescriptions). Among hospitalized patients, the median length of stay was 6 days, with 9.6% requiring transfer to a critical care unit and 5.3% dying in the hospital.
 

Hospitalizations, ED Visits Not Studied Previously

“Notably, the rate of antibiotic-associated serious cADRs leading to an ED visit or hospitalization has not been previously studied,” noted the authors. “We found that at least two hospital encounters for serious cADRs ensued for every 1000 antibiotic prescriptions. This rate is considerably higher than suggested by studies that examine only SJS/TEN and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms.”

Dr. Lee also emphasized the previously unreported findings about nitrofurantoin. “It is surprising to find that nitrofurantoin, a commonly prescribed antibiotic for urinary tract infection, is also associated with an increased risk of severe drug rash,” she said in an interview.

“This finding highlights a potential novel risk at a population-based level and should be further explored in other populations to verify this association,” the authors wrote.

Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, who was not involved in the study, agreed that the nitrofurantoin finding was surprising, but he was not surprised that sulfonamides were high on the list.

“The study reinforces that antibiotics are not benign medications to be dispensed injudiciously,” he said in an interview. “Antibiotics have risks, including serious skin reactions, as well as the fostering of antibiotic resistance. Clinicians should always first ask themselves if their patient actually merits an antibiotic and then assess what is the safest antibiotic for the purpose, bearing in mind that certain antibiotics are more likely to result in adverse reactions than others.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The study was conducted at ICES, which is funded in part by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology as reviewer and section editor, the American Academy of Dermatology as guidelines writer, Canadian Dermatology Today as manuscript writer, and the National Eczema Association and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health as consultant; as well as receiving research grants to the coauthor’s institution from the National Eczema Association, Eczema Society of Canada, Canadian Dermatology Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, and PSI Foundation. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Celgene, Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; receiving payment or honoraria for speaking from Sanofi China; participating on advisory boards for LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and Union Therapeutics; and receiving equipment donation from L’Oréal. Dr. Adalja reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Potentially life-threatening cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) are associated with commonly prescribed oral antibiotics, according to a large, population-based, nested case-control study of older adults, spanning two decades.

The findings, published online in JAMA, “underscore the importance of judicious prescribing, with preferential use of antibiotics associated with a lower risk when clinically appropriate,” noted senior author David Juurlink, MD, PhD, professor of medicine; pediatrics; and health policy, management and evaluation at the University of Toronto, and head of the Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Division at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, also in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“We hope our study raises awareness about the importance of drug allergy and gains support for future studies to improve drug allergy care,” lead author Erika Lee, MD, clinical immunology and allergy lecturer at the University of Toronto’s Drug Allergy Clinic, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, said in an interview. “It is important to recognize symptoms and signs of a severe drug rash and promptly stop culprit drugs to prevent worsening reaction.”

Serious cADRs are “a group of rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reactions involving the skin and, frequently, internal organs,” the authors wrote. “Typically delayed in onset, these reactions include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) — the most severe cADR, which has a reported mortality of 20%-40%,” they noted.

Speculation Without Data

Although it has been speculated that some oral antibiotics are more likely than others to be associated with serious cADRs, there have been no population-based studies examining this, they added.

The study included adults aged 66 years or older and used administrative health databases in Ontario, spanning from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2022. Data on antibiotic use were taken from the Ontario Drug Benefit database. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) National Ambulatory Care Reporting System was used to obtain data on emergency department (ED) visits for cADRs, while the CIHI Discharge Abstract Database was used to identify hospitalizations for cADRs. Finally, demographic information and outpatient healthcare utilization data were obtained from the Registered Persons Database and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan database, respectively.

A cohort of 21,758 older adults (median age, 75 years; 64.1% women) who had an ED visit or hospitalization for serious cADRs within 60 days of receiving antibiotic therapy was matched by age and sex with 87,025 antibiotic-treated controls who did not have a cutaneous reaction.

The median duration of antibiotic prescription was 7 days among cases and controls, and among the cases, the median latency period between antibiotic prescriptions and hospital visits for cADRs was 14 days. Most of the case patients went to the ED only (86.9%), and the rest were hospitalized.

The most commonly prescribed antibiotic class was penicillins (28.9%), followed by cephalosporins (18.2%), fluoroquinolones (16.5%), macrolides (14.8%), nitrofurantoin (8.6%), and sulfonamides (6.2%). Less commonly used antibiotics (“other” antibiotics) accounted for 6.9%.

Macrolide antibiotics were used as the reference because they are rarely associated with serious cADRs, noted the authors, and the multivariable analysis, adjusted for risk factors associated with serious cADRs, including malignancy, chronic liver disease, chronic kidney disease, and HIV.

After multivariable adjustment, relative to macrolides, sulfonamides were most strongly associated with serious cADRs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9) but so were all other antibiotic classes, including cephalosporins (aOR, 2.6), “other” antibiotics (aOR, 2.3), nitrofurantoin (aOR, 2.2), penicillins (aOR, 1.4), and fluoroquinolones (aOR,1.3).

In the secondary analysis, the crude rate of ED visits or hospitalizations for cADRs was highest for cephalosporins (4.92 per 1000 prescriptions), followed by sulfonamides (3.22 per 1000 prescriptions). Among hospitalized patients, the median length of stay was 6 days, with 9.6% requiring transfer to a critical care unit and 5.3% dying in the hospital.
 

Hospitalizations, ED Visits Not Studied Previously

“Notably, the rate of antibiotic-associated serious cADRs leading to an ED visit or hospitalization has not been previously studied,” noted the authors. “We found that at least two hospital encounters for serious cADRs ensued for every 1000 antibiotic prescriptions. This rate is considerably higher than suggested by studies that examine only SJS/TEN and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms.”

Dr. Lee also emphasized the previously unreported findings about nitrofurantoin. “It is surprising to find that nitrofurantoin, a commonly prescribed antibiotic for urinary tract infection, is also associated with an increased risk of severe drug rash,” she said in an interview.

“This finding highlights a potential novel risk at a population-based level and should be further explored in other populations to verify this association,” the authors wrote.

Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, who was not involved in the study, agreed that the nitrofurantoin finding was surprising, but he was not surprised that sulfonamides were high on the list.

“The study reinforces that antibiotics are not benign medications to be dispensed injudiciously,” he said in an interview. “Antibiotics have risks, including serious skin reactions, as well as the fostering of antibiotic resistance. Clinicians should always first ask themselves if their patient actually merits an antibiotic and then assess what is the safest antibiotic for the purpose, bearing in mind that certain antibiotics are more likely to result in adverse reactions than others.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The study was conducted at ICES, which is funded in part by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology as reviewer and section editor, the American Academy of Dermatology as guidelines writer, Canadian Dermatology Today as manuscript writer, and the National Eczema Association and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health as consultant; as well as receiving research grants to the coauthor’s institution from the National Eczema Association, Eczema Society of Canada, Canadian Dermatology Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, and PSI Foundation. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Celgene, Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; receiving payment or honoraria for speaking from Sanofi China; participating on advisory boards for LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and Union Therapeutics; and receiving equipment donation from L’Oréal. Dr. Adalja reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Potentially life-threatening cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) are associated with commonly prescribed oral antibiotics, according to a large, population-based, nested case-control study of older adults, spanning two decades.

The findings, published online in JAMA, “underscore the importance of judicious prescribing, with preferential use of antibiotics associated with a lower risk when clinically appropriate,” noted senior author David Juurlink, MD, PhD, professor of medicine; pediatrics; and health policy, management and evaluation at the University of Toronto, and head of the Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Division at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, also in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“We hope our study raises awareness about the importance of drug allergy and gains support for future studies to improve drug allergy care,” lead author Erika Lee, MD, clinical immunology and allergy lecturer at the University of Toronto’s Drug Allergy Clinic, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, said in an interview. “It is important to recognize symptoms and signs of a severe drug rash and promptly stop culprit drugs to prevent worsening reaction.”

Serious cADRs are “a group of rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reactions involving the skin and, frequently, internal organs,” the authors wrote. “Typically delayed in onset, these reactions include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) — the most severe cADR, which has a reported mortality of 20%-40%,” they noted.

Speculation Without Data

Although it has been speculated that some oral antibiotics are more likely than others to be associated with serious cADRs, there have been no population-based studies examining this, they added.

The study included adults aged 66 years or older and used administrative health databases in Ontario, spanning from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2022. Data on antibiotic use were taken from the Ontario Drug Benefit database. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) National Ambulatory Care Reporting System was used to obtain data on emergency department (ED) visits for cADRs, while the CIHI Discharge Abstract Database was used to identify hospitalizations for cADRs. Finally, demographic information and outpatient healthcare utilization data were obtained from the Registered Persons Database and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan database, respectively.

A cohort of 21,758 older adults (median age, 75 years; 64.1% women) who had an ED visit or hospitalization for serious cADRs within 60 days of receiving antibiotic therapy was matched by age and sex with 87,025 antibiotic-treated controls who did not have a cutaneous reaction.

The median duration of antibiotic prescription was 7 days among cases and controls, and among the cases, the median latency period between antibiotic prescriptions and hospital visits for cADRs was 14 days. Most of the case patients went to the ED only (86.9%), and the rest were hospitalized.

The most commonly prescribed antibiotic class was penicillins (28.9%), followed by cephalosporins (18.2%), fluoroquinolones (16.5%), macrolides (14.8%), nitrofurantoin (8.6%), and sulfonamides (6.2%). Less commonly used antibiotics (“other” antibiotics) accounted for 6.9%.

Macrolide antibiotics were used as the reference because they are rarely associated with serious cADRs, noted the authors, and the multivariable analysis, adjusted for risk factors associated with serious cADRs, including malignancy, chronic liver disease, chronic kidney disease, and HIV.

After multivariable adjustment, relative to macrolides, sulfonamides were most strongly associated with serious cADRs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9) but so were all other antibiotic classes, including cephalosporins (aOR, 2.6), “other” antibiotics (aOR, 2.3), nitrofurantoin (aOR, 2.2), penicillins (aOR, 1.4), and fluoroquinolones (aOR,1.3).

In the secondary analysis, the crude rate of ED visits or hospitalizations for cADRs was highest for cephalosporins (4.92 per 1000 prescriptions), followed by sulfonamides (3.22 per 1000 prescriptions). Among hospitalized patients, the median length of stay was 6 days, with 9.6% requiring transfer to a critical care unit and 5.3% dying in the hospital.
 

Hospitalizations, ED Visits Not Studied Previously

“Notably, the rate of antibiotic-associated serious cADRs leading to an ED visit or hospitalization has not been previously studied,” noted the authors. “We found that at least two hospital encounters for serious cADRs ensued for every 1000 antibiotic prescriptions. This rate is considerably higher than suggested by studies that examine only SJS/TEN and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms.”

Dr. Lee also emphasized the previously unreported findings about nitrofurantoin. “It is surprising to find that nitrofurantoin, a commonly prescribed antibiotic for urinary tract infection, is also associated with an increased risk of severe drug rash,” she said in an interview.

“This finding highlights a potential novel risk at a population-based level and should be further explored in other populations to verify this association,” the authors wrote.

Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, who was not involved in the study, agreed that the nitrofurantoin finding was surprising, but he was not surprised that sulfonamides were high on the list.

“The study reinforces that antibiotics are not benign medications to be dispensed injudiciously,” he said in an interview. “Antibiotics have risks, including serious skin reactions, as well as the fostering of antibiotic resistance. Clinicians should always first ask themselves if their patient actually merits an antibiotic and then assess what is the safest antibiotic for the purpose, bearing in mind that certain antibiotics are more likely to result in adverse reactions than others.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The study was conducted at ICES, which is funded in part by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology as reviewer and section editor, the American Academy of Dermatology as guidelines writer, Canadian Dermatology Today as manuscript writer, and the National Eczema Association and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health as consultant; as well as receiving research grants to the coauthor’s institution from the National Eczema Association, Eczema Society of Canada, Canadian Dermatology Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, and PSI Foundation. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Celgene, Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; receiving payment or honoraria for speaking from Sanofi China; participating on advisory boards for LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and Union Therapeutics; and receiving equipment donation from L’Oréal. Dr. Adalja reported no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

The estimated number of US adults who consumed at least one of the six most frequently reported hepatotoxic botanicals in the last 30 days is similar to the number of patients prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and simvastatin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) are an increasingly common source of drug hepatotoxicity cases, but their prevalence and the reasons for their use among the general population are uncertain.
• This survey study evaluated nationally representative data from 9685 adults (mean age, 47.5 years; 51.8% women) enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between January 2017 and March 2020.
• Participants reported their use of HDS and prescription drugs through personal interviews for a 30-day period prior to the survey date.
• Researchers compared the clinical features and baseline demographic characteristics of users of six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals (ie, turmeric, green tea, Garcinia cambogia, black cohosh, red yeast rice, and ashwagandha) with those of nonusers.
• The prevalence of use of these at-risk botanicals was compared with that of widely prescribed potentially hepatotoxic medications, including NSAIDs, simvastatin, and sertraline.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the cohort of 9685 participants, 4.7% of individuals reported consumption of at least one of the six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals in the past 30 days, with turmeric being the most common, followed by green tea.
• Extrapolating the survey data, researchers estimated that 15.6 million US adults use at least one of these six botanicals, which is comparable to the number of those prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including NSAIDs (14.8 million) and simvastatin (14.0 million). Sertraline use was lower (7.7 million).
• Most individuals used these botanicals without the recommendation of their healthcare provider.
• Those using botanicals were more likely to be older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.36; P = .04 for 40-59 years; aOR, 3.96; P = .001 for ≥ 60 years), to have some college education (aOR, 4.78; P < .001), and to have arthritis (aOR, 2.27; P < .001) than nonusers.
• The most common reasons for using any of these six potential hepatotoxic botanicals were to improve or maintain health or to prevent health problems or boost immunity.

IN PRACTICE:

“In light of the lack of regulatory oversight on the manufacturing and testing of botanical products, it is recommended that clinicians obtain a full medication and HDS use history when evaluating patients with unexplained symptoms or liver test abnormalities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Alisa Likhitsup, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

The survey response rate was low at 43.9% for adults aged ≥ 20 years. As NHANES is a cross-sectional study, the causal relationship between consumption of the six botanicals of interest and the development of liver injury could not be determined. The use of HDS products and medications was self-reported in NHANES and not independently verified using source documents. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any source of funding. Two authors declared receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The estimated number of US adults who consumed at least one of the six most frequently reported hepatotoxic botanicals in the last 30 days is similar to the number of patients prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and simvastatin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) are an increasingly common source of drug hepatotoxicity cases, but their prevalence and the reasons for their use among the general population are uncertain.
• This survey study evaluated nationally representative data from 9685 adults (mean age, 47.5 years; 51.8% women) enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between January 2017 and March 2020.
• Participants reported their use of HDS and prescription drugs through personal interviews for a 30-day period prior to the survey date.
• Researchers compared the clinical features and baseline demographic characteristics of users of six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals (ie, turmeric, green tea, Garcinia cambogia, black cohosh, red yeast rice, and ashwagandha) with those of nonusers.
• The prevalence of use of these at-risk botanicals was compared with that of widely prescribed potentially hepatotoxic medications, including NSAIDs, simvastatin, and sertraline.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the cohort of 9685 participants, 4.7% of individuals reported consumption of at least one of the six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals in the past 30 days, with turmeric being the most common, followed by green tea.
• Extrapolating the survey data, researchers estimated that 15.6 million US adults use at least one of these six botanicals, which is comparable to the number of those prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including NSAIDs (14.8 million) and simvastatin (14.0 million). Sertraline use was lower (7.7 million).
• Most individuals used these botanicals without the recommendation of their healthcare provider.
• Those using botanicals were more likely to be older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.36; P = .04 for 40-59 years; aOR, 3.96; P = .001 for ≥ 60 years), to have some college education (aOR, 4.78; P < .001), and to have arthritis (aOR, 2.27; P < .001) than nonusers.
• The most common reasons for using any of these six potential hepatotoxic botanicals were to improve or maintain health or to prevent health problems or boost immunity.

IN PRACTICE:

“In light of the lack of regulatory oversight on the manufacturing and testing of botanical products, it is recommended that clinicians obtain a full medication and HDS use history when evaluating patients with unexplained symptoms or liver test abnormalities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Alisa Likhitsup, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

The survey response rate was low at 43.9% for adults aged ≥ 20 years. As NHANES is a cross-sectional study, the causal relationship between consumption of the six botanicals of interest and the development of liver injury could not be determined. The use of HDS products and medications was self-reported in NHANES and not independently verified using source documents. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any source of funding. Two authors declared receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The estimated number of US adults who consumed at least one of the six most frequently reported hepatotoxic botanicals in the last 30 days is similar to the number of patients prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and simvastatin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) are an increasingly common source of drug hepatotoxicity cases, but their prevalence and the reasons for their use among the general population are uncertain.
• This survey study evaluated nationally representative data from 9685 adults (mean age, 47.5 years; 51.8% women) enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between January 2017 and March 2020.
• Participants reported their use of HDS and prescription drugs through personal interviews for a 30-day period prior to the survey date.
• Researchers compared the clinical features and baseline demographic characteristics of users of six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals (ie, turmeric, green tea, Garcinia cambogia, black cohosh, red yeast rice, and ashwagandha) with those of nonusers.
• The prevalence of use of these at-risk botanicals was compared with that of widely prescribed potentially hepatotoxic medications, including NSAIDs, simvastatin, and sertraline.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the cohort of 9685 participants, 4.7% of individuals reported consumption of at least one of the six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals in the past 30 days, with turmeric being the most common, followed by green tea.
• Extrapolating the survey data, researchers estimated that 15.6 million US adults use at least one of these six botanicals, which is comparable to the number of those prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including NSAIDs (14.8 million) and simvastatin (14.0 million). Sertraline use was lower (7.7 million).
• Most individuals used these botanicals without the recommendation of their healthcare provider.
• Those using botanicals were more likely to be older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.36; P = .04 for 40-59 years; aOR, 3.96; P = .001 for ≥ 60 years), to have some college education (aOR, 4.78; P < .001), and to have arthritis (aOR, 2.27; P < .001) than nonusers.
• The most common reasons for using any of these six potential hepatotoxic botanicals were to improve or maintain health or to prevent health problems or boost immunity.

IN PRACTICE:

“In light of the lack of regulatory oversight on the manufacturing and testing of botanical products, it is recommended that clinicians obtain a full medication and HDS use history when evaluating patients with unexplained symptoms or liver test abnormalities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Alisa Likhitsup, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

The survey response rate was low at 43.9% for adults aged ≥ 20 years. As NHANES is a cross-sectional study, the causal relationship between consumption of the six botanicals of interest and the development of liver injury could not be determined. The use of HDS products and medications was self-reported in NHANES and not independently verified using source documents. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any source of funding. Two authors declared receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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