MDedge Rheumatology

TOPLINE:

About 40% of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and 36% with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) screened positive for anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia as part of routine visits to an academic medical center, and these comorbidities were linked to poorer patient status measures, highlighting the need for routine screening in clinical practice. 

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia in 366 patients with OA (mean age, 66.6 years) and 488 patients with RA (mean age, 56.9 years) who were in routine care at an academic center from 2011 to 2022.
• All participants were required to have complete Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) data available for the analysis.
• The MDHAQ included indices to assess the overall patient status and screen for anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• The overall patient status was measured using the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), which comprised the physical function, pain, and patient global scores.
• The prevalence of each comorbidity and its association with patient status was analyzed using unadjusted and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with OA, 40.4% were screened positive for at least one of the three indices indicating patient distress (anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia). Among patients with RA, the proportion was 36.3%.
• Among the patients who screened positive for at least one index, about 20% screened positive for all three indices related to anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• In patients with OA, a poorer patient status (RAPID3, ≥ 12 vs < 12) increased the likelihood of anxiety (OR, 3.93; 95% CI, 2.24-7.23), depression (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.01-7.73), and fibromyalgia (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 3.36-14.99).
• Similarly, the odds of all three comorbidities increased in the patients with RA who had worsened patient status.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening for [anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia] can be incorporated feasibly into routine clinical care using a single MDHAQ to better inform health professionals concerning patient status, prognosis, and response to treatments,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juan Schmukler, MD, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and was published online on July 16, 2024, in ACR Open Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The analyses were cross-sectional, and whether anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia had preceded or followed the onset of OA or RA was not known. Information on the clinical variables associated with anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia, such as body mass index, medication history, and other comorbid conditions, was not available. All the patients were seen at a single rheumatology site, which may have limited the generalizability of the observations. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. One author disclosed receiving grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author reported numerous financial relationships with companies in the medical industry, and another reported holding a copyright and trademark on MDHAQ and RAPID3. 

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

TOPLINE:

About 40% of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and 36% with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) screened positive for anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia as part of routine visits to an academic medical center, and these comorbidities were linked to poorer patient status measures, highlighting the need for routine screening in clinical practice. 

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia in 366 patients with OA (mean age, 66.6 years) and 488 patients with RA (mean age, 56.9 years) who were in routine care at an academic center from 2011 to 2022.
• All participants were required to have complete Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) data available for the analysis.
• The MDHAQ included indices to assess the overall patient status and screen for anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• The overall patient status was measured using the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), which comprised the physical function, pain, and patient global scores.
• The prevalence of each comorbidity and its association with patient status was analyzed using unadjusted and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with OA, 40.4% were screened positive for at least one of the three indices indicating patient distress (anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia). Among patients with RA, the proportion was 36.3%.
• Among the patients who screened positive for at least one index, about 20% screened positive for all three indices related to anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• In patients with OA, a poorer patient status (RAPID3, ≥ 12 vs < 12) increased the likelihood of anxiety (OR, 3.93; 95% CI, 2.24-7.23), depression (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.01-7.73), and fibromyalgia (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 3.36-14.99).
• Similarly, the odds of all three comorbidities increased in the patients with RA who had worsened patient status.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening for [anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia] can be incorporated feasibly into routine clinical care using a single MDHAQ to better inform health professionals concerning patient status, prognosis, and response to treatments,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juan Schmukler, MD, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and was published online on July 16, 2024, in ACR Open Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The analyses were cross-sectional, and whether anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia had preceded or followed the onset of OA or RA was not known. Information on the clinical variables associated with anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia, such as body mass index, medication history, and other comorbid conditions, was not available. All the patients were seen at a single rheumatology site, which may have limited the generalizability of the observations. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. One author disclosed receiving grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author reported numerous financial relationships with companies in the medical industry, and another reported holding a copyright and trademark on MDHAQ and RAPID3. 

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

TOPLINE:

About 40% of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and 36% with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) screened positive for anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia as part of routine visits to an academic medical center, and these comorbidities were linked to poorer patient status measures, highlighting the need for routine screening in clinical practice. 

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia in 366 patients with OA (mean age, 66.6 years) and 488 patients with RA (mean age, 56.9 years) who were in routine care at an academic center from 2011 to 2022.
• All participants were required to have complete Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) data available for the analysis.
• The MDHAQ included indices to assess the overall patient status and screen for anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• The overall patient status was measured using the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), which comprised the physical function, pain, and patient global scores.
• The prevalence of each comorbidity and its association with patient status was analyzed using unadjusted and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with OA, 40.4% were screened positive for at least one of the three indices indicating patient distress (anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia). Among patients with RA, the proportion was 36.3%.
• Among the patients who screened positive for at least one index, about 20% screened positive for all three indices related to anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• In patients with OA, a poorer patient status (RAPID3, ≥ 12 vs < 12) increased the likelihood of anxiety (OR, 3.93; 95% CI, 2.24-7.23), depression (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.01-7.73), and fibromyalgia (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 3.36-14.99).
• Similarly, the odds of all three comorbidities increased in the patients with RA who had worsened patient status.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening for [anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia] can be incorporated feasibly into routine clinical care using a single MDHAQ to better inform health professionals concerning patient status, prognosis, and response to treatments,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juan Schmukler, MD, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and was published online on July 16, 2024, in ACR Open Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The analyses were cross-sectional, and whether anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia had preceded or followed the onset of OA or RA was not known. Information on the clinical variables associated with anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia, such as body mass index, medication history, and other comorbid conditions, was not available. All the patients were seen at a single rheumatology site, which may have limited the generalizability of the observations. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. One author disclosed receiving grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author reported numerous financial relationships with companies in the medical industry, and another reported holding a copyright and trademark on MDHAQ and RAPID3. 

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

TOPLINE:

People with knee osteoarthritis and symptoms for less than 1 year benefit more from exercise therapy than do those with longer symptom duration, especially when long-term outcomes are considered.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using data from the OA Trial Bank, including 1769 participants (mean age, 65.1 years; 66% women) with knee osteoarthritis from 10 randomized controlled trials.
• The participants were categorized on the basis of their symptom duration: ≤ 1 year, > 1 and ≤ 2 years, and > 2 years.
• This study included an exercise therapy group comprising land- and water-based therapeutic exercise interventions and a control group comprising no exercise or sham treatment.
• The primary outcomes were self-reported pain and physical function, standardized to a 0-100 scale, at short-term (closest to 3 months) and long-term (closest to 12 months) follow-ups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pain and physical function associated with osteoarthritis improved in the exercise therapy group at both short- and long-term follow-ups compared with in the control group.
• Exercise therapy led to a greater improvement in short-term (mean difference [MD], −3.57; P = .028) and long-term (MD, −8.33; P < .001) pain among participants with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year.
• Similarly, those with a symptom duration ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years who underwent exercise therapy showed greater benefits in terms of short-term (P = .001) and long-term (P < .001) pain.
• Exercise therapy improved long-term physical function in those with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year (MD, −5.46; P = .005) and ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years (MD, −4.56; P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be encouraged as early as possible once symptoms emerge in the disease process to take advantage of its effects in potentially [slowing] disease progression within the suggested ‘window of opportunity,’ ” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marienke van Middelkoop, PhD, Erasmus MC Medical University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset of most studies included in the meta-analysis lacked information on the radiographic severity of osteoarthritis. The relatively short follow-up time hindered interpreting the impact of exercise on the long-term progression of osteoarthritis. The reliance on patient recall for recording symptom duration may have led to misclassification.

DISCLOSURES:

The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development supported this study. Three authors received funding from the Dutch Arthritis Society for the program grant Center of Excellence “OA prevention and early treatment – OA Pearl.” One author declared receiving royalties for the UpToDate knee osteoarthritis clinical guidelines.

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:

People with knee osteoarthritis and symptoms for less than 1 year benefit more from exercise therapy than do those with longer symptom duration, especially when long-term outcomes are considered.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using data from the OA Trial Bank, including 1769 participants (mean age, 65.1 years; 66% women) with knee osteoarthritis from 10 randomized controlled trials.
• The participants were categorized on the basis of their symptom duration: ≤ 1 year, > 1 and ≤ 2 years, and > 2 years.
• This study included an exercise therapy group comprising land- and water-based therapeutic exercise interventions and a control group comprising no exercise or sham treatment.
• The primary outcomes were self-reported pain and physical function, standardized to a 0-100 scale, at short-term (closest to 3 months) and long-term (closest to 12 months) follow-ups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pain and physical function associated with osteoarthritis improved in the exercise therapy group at both short- and long-term follow-ups compared with in the control group.
• Exercise therapy led to a greater improvement in short-term (mean difference [MD], −3.57; P = .028) and long-term (MD, −8.33; P < .001) pain among participants with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year.
• Similarly, those with a symptom duration ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years who underwent exercise therapy showed greater benefits in terms of short-term (P = .001) and long-term (P < .001) pain.
• Exercise therapy improved long-term physical function in those with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year (MD, −5.46; P = .005) and ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years (MD, −4.56; P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be encouraged as early as possible once symptoms emerge in the disease process to take advantage of its effects in potentially [slowing] disease progression within the suggested ‘window of opportunity,’ ” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marienke van Middelkoop, PhD, Erasmus MC Medical University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset of most studies included in the meta-analysis lacked information on the radiographic severity of osteoarthritis. The relatively short follow-up time hindered interpreting the impact of exercise on the long-term progression of osteoarthritis. The reliance on patient recall for recording symptom duration may have led to misclassification.

DISCLOSURES:

The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development supported this study. Three authors received funding from the Dutch Arthritis Society for the program grant Center of Excellence “OA prevention and early treatment – OA Pearl.” One author declared receiving royalties for the UpToDate knee osteoarthritis clinical guidelines.

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:

People with knee osteoarthritis and symptoms for less than 1 year benefit more from exercise therapy than do those with longer symptom duration, especially when long-term outcomes are considered.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using data from the OA Trial Bank, including 1769 participants (mean age, 65.1 years; 66% women) with knee osteoarthritis from 10 randomized controlled trials.
• The participants were categorized on the basis of their symptom duration: ≤ 1 year, > 1 and ≤ 2 years, and > 2 years.
• This study included an exercise therapy group comprising land- and water-based therapeutic exercise interventions and a control group comprising no exercise or sham treatment.
• The primary outcomes were self-reported pain and physical function, standardized to a 0-100 scale, at short-term (closest to 3 months) and long-term (closest to 12 months) follow-ups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pain and physical function associated with osteoarthritis improved in the exercise therapy group at both short- and long-term follow-ups compared with in the control group.
• Exercise therapy led to a greater improvement in short-term (mean difference [MD], −3.57; P = .028) and long-term (MD, −8.33; P < .001) pain among participants with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year.
• Similarly, those with a symptom duration ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years who underwent exercise therapy showed greater benefits in terms of short-term (P = .001) and long-term (P < .001) pain.
• Exercise therapy improved long-term physical function in those with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year (MD, −5.46; P = .005) and ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years (MD, −4.56; P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be encouraged as early as possible once symptoms emerge in the disease process to take advantage of its effects in potentially [slowing] disease progression within the suggested ‘window of opportunity,’ ” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marienke van Middelkoop, PhD, Erasmus MC Medical University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset of most studies included in the meta-analysis lacked information on the radiographic severity of osteoarthritis. The relatively short follow-up time hindered interpreting the impact of exercise on the long-term progression of osteoarthritis. The reliance on patient recall for recording symptom duration may have led to misclassification.

DISCLOSURES:

The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development supported this study. Three authors received funding from the Dutch Arthritis Society for the program grant Center of Excellence “OA prevention and early treatment – OA Pearl.” One author declared receiving royalties for the UpToDate knee osteoarthritis clinical guidelines.

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.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

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

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Colchicine is an effective treatment for most pediatric patients with complex aphthous stomatitis (CAS), results from a small retrospective study showed.

“Complex aphthous stomatitis in children is typically treated with topical supportive care, which is often not effective,” one of the study investigators, Ananya Shah, a third-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry, Rochester, New York, told this news organization following the Society for Pediatric Dermatology annual meeting, where the study was presented during a poster session. “There is limited research on CAS and its treatment in children. Colchicine is often used for treatment of CAS in adults, but its use in children has not been studied.”

Ms. Shah, in collaboration with Hilary Kunkel, MD, Nessa Aghazadeh, MD, and Megha Tollefson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, retrospectively reviewed the charts of 20 children diagnosed with CAS who were treated with colchicine, an anti-inflammatory drug often used to treat gout, at the clinic between 2000 and 2023. Treatment responses were defined as no response, partial response, and complete response. Half of the patients were girls, and their median age at presentation was 5 years.

Ulcers were most commonly located in the buccal mucosa (80%), followed by the gingiva (50%), the mucosal lip (50%), and the palate (40%). Nearly all patients (95%) reported that the CAS caused difficulties with eating or drinking. Other effects on their quality of life included weight loss (35%), bleeding (30%), and difficulty brushing teeth (25%). “I was surprised by how much CAS impacts pediatric patients’ quality of life,” Ms. Shah said. “Almost all of the patients experienced trouble with basic activities of daily living, including eating and drinking. In addition, CAS negatively impacted mental health and led to missed school for patients.”

The researchers had follow-up data on responses to colchicine for 14 of the 20 patients. Of these, 12 (86%) had symptom improvement, 5 (36%) had a complete response, 8 (57%) had a partial response, and 1 (7%) did not respond. Nine patients (64%) experienced side effects. Of these, six had diarrhea, two had nausea, and one had constipation.

“Colchicine should be considered as a treatment in pediatric patients who have refractory complex aphthous stomatitis as it is generally well tolerated with minimal side effects,” Ms. Shah said. She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Colchicine is an effective treatment for most pediatric patients with complex aphthous stomatitis (CAS), results from a small retrospective study showed.

“Complex aphthous stomatitis in children is typically treated with topical supportive care, which is often not effective,” one of the study investigators, Ananya Shah, a third-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry, Rochester, New York, told this news organization following the Society for Pediatric Dermatology annual meeting, where the study was presented during a poster session. “There is limited research on CAS and its treatment in children. Colchicine is often used for treatment of CAS in adults, but its use in children has not been studied.”

Ms. Shah, in collaboration with Hilary Kunkel, MD, Nessa Aghazadeh, MD, and Megha Tollefson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, retrospectively reviewed the charts of 20 children diagnosed with CAS who were treated with colchicine, an anti-inflammatory drug often used to treat gout, at the clinic between 2000 and 2023. Treatment responses were defined as no response, partial response, and complete response. Half of the patients were girls, and their median age at presentation was 5 years.

Ulcers were most commonly located in the buccal mucosa (80%), followed by the gingiva (50%), the mucosal lip (50%), and the palate (40%). Nearly all patients (95%) reported that the CAS caused difficulties with eating or drinking. Other effects on their quality of life included weight loss (35%), bleeding (30%), and difficulty brushing teeth (25%). “I was surprised by how much CAS impacts pediatric patients’ quality of life,” Ms. Shah said. “Almost all of the patients experienced trouble with basic activities of daily living, including eating and drinking. In addition, CAS negatively impacted mental health and led to missed school for patients.”

The researchers had follow-up data on responses to colchicine for 14 of the 20 patients. Of these, 12 (86%) had symptom improvement, 5 (36%) had a complete response, 8 (57%) had a partial response, and 1 (7%) did not respond. Nine patients (64%) experienced side effects. Of these, six had diarrhea, two had nausea, and one had constipation.

“Colchicine should be considered as a treatment in pediatric patients who have refractory complex aphthous stomatitis as it is generally well tolerated with minimal side effects,” Ms. Shah said. She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Colchicine is an effective treatment for most pediatric patients with complex aphthous stomatitis (CAS), results from a small retrospective study showed.

“Complex aphthous stomatitis in children is typically treated with topical supportive care, which is often not effective,” one of the study investigators, Ananya Shah, a third-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry, Rochester, New York, told this news organization following the Society for Pediatric Dermatology annual meeting, where the study was presented during a poster session. “There is limited research on CAS and its treatment in children. Colchicine is often used for treatment of CAS in adults, but its use in children has not been studied.”

Ms. Shah, in collaboration with Hilary Kunkel, MD, Nessa Aghazadeh, MD, and Megha Tollefson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, retrospectively reviewed the charts of 20 children diagnosed with CAS who were treated with colchicine, an anti-inflammatory drug often used to treat gout, at the clinic between 2000 and 2023. Treatment responses were defined as no response, partial response, and complete response. Half of the patients were girls, and their median age at presentation was 5 years.

Ulcers were most commonly located in the buccal mucosa (80%), followed by the gingiva (50%), the mucosal lip (50%), and the palate (40%). Nearly all patients (95%) reported that the CAS caused difficulties with eating or drinking. Other effects on their quality of life included weight loss (35%), bleeding (30%), and difficulty brushing teeth (25%). “I was surprised by how much CAS impacts pediatric patients’ quality of life,” Ms. Shah said. “Almost all of the patients experienced trouble with basic activities of daily living, including eating and drinking. In addition, CAS negatively impacted mental health and led to missed school for patients.”

The researchers had follow-up data on responses to colchicine for 14 of the 20 patients. Of these, 12 (86%) had symptom improvement, 5 (36%) had a complete response, 8 (57%) had a partial response, and 1 (7%) did not respond. Nine patients (64%) experienced side effects. Of these, six had diarrhea, two had nausea, and one had constipation.

“Colchicine should be considered as a treatment in pediatric patients who have refractory complex aphthous stomatitis as it is generally well tolerated with minimal side effects,” Ms. Shah said. She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Eat as fast as you can whenever you can.

That was the med student mindset around food, as Catherine Harmon Toomer, MD, discovered during her school years. “Without a good system in place to counter that,” she explains, “unhealthy eating can get out of control, and that’s what happened to me.”

After med school, things got worse for Dr. Toomer. By her second year in practice as a family medicine physician, she’d gained a lot of weight and had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and cardiomyopathy. At 36, she went into congestive heart failure and was told she likely had 5 years to live.

A moment she described as “a huge wake-up call.”

Dr. Toomer is far from alone in her struggles to balance working in medicine and eating healthfully.

“Physicians face unique stresses because of the ubiquity of junk food in the clinical setting, easy use of food as a reward and stress reliever, and lack of time to create better wellness habits while counseling patients to do exactly that,” said John La Puma, MD, FACP, internist and cofounder of ChefMD and founder of Chef Clinic.

There is also the culture of medicine, which Dr. Toomer said looks down on self-care. “Even with break times, patient needs come before our own.” So, you sit down to eat, and there’s an emergency. Your clinic closes for lunch, but the phones still ring, and patients continue to email questions. Charting is also so time-consuming that “everything else gets put on the back burner.”

Sticking to a nutritious diet in this context can feel hopeless. But it isn’t. Really. Here are some doctor-tested, real-life ways you can nourish yourself while getting it all done.
 

Something Is Always Better Than Nothing

Sure, you might not be able to eat a balanced lunch or dinner while at work, conceded Amy Margulies, RD, LDN, owner of The Rebellious RD. But try to focus on the bigger picture and take small steps.

First, make sure you eat something, Ms. Margulies advised. “Skipping meals can lead to overeating later and negatively impact energy levels and concentration.”

Lisa Andrews, MEd, RD, LD, owner of Sound Bites Nutrition, recalled one of her patients, a gastrointestinal surgeon with reactive hypoglycemia and fatigue. “She was experiencing energy crashes mid-afternoon,” she said. It was only after starting to eat every 4-5 hours that her patient felt better.

Of course, this is easier said than done. “When you are running from one patient to the other and trying to keep on time with your schedule, there is very little time for eating and no time at all for cooking or even heating up food,” recalled Hélène Bertrand, MD, author of Low Back Pain: 3 Steps to Relief in 2 Minutes.

But during her 55 years as a family medicine physician, Dr. Bertrand found ways to improve (if not perfect) the situation. She lunched on nuts or seeds during the day or grabbed a 95% cacao chocolate bar — higher in antioxidants and lower in sugar than a candy bar.

If you don’t have time for breakfast, try drinking a complete protein shake while driving to work, Dr. Toomer recommended. “It’s not ideal, but it’s better than nothing.” Similarly, if the only way you’ll eat a high-protein, lower-carb snack like hummus is with potato chips, go for it, she said.

Basically, don’t be type A striving for perfection. Take good enough when you can and balance the rest when you have time.
 

Torpedo Temptation

From free treats in the break room to always-present pizza for residents, high-fat, high-sugar, low-nutrient fare is a constant temptation. “I worked with a physician who would bring a balanced lunch to work every day, then find whatever sweet was around for his afternoon treat,” recalled Ms. Margulies.“The cookies, cakes, and donuts were starting to add up — and stopping at one wasn’t working for him.”

What did work was Ms. Margulies’ suggestion to bring a single serving of dark chocolate and fruit to savor during a longer break. “Bringing your favorite treats in appropriate portions can help you stick with your plan throughout the day,” she explained, and you’ll have an easier time resisting what’s in the break room. “When you desire a treat, tell yourself you have what you need and don’t need to indulge in the ‘free food’ just because it’s there. You have power over your choices.”

How about tricking yourself into perceiving cherry tomatoes as treats? That might be unusual, but one of Dr. La Puma’s physician patients did just that, displaying the produce in a candy dish on his office counter. Not only did this strategy help remind him to snack healthfully, it also prompted his patients to ask about eating better, he said.
 

Preparation Is Still Underrated

Many people find meal prepping intimidating. But it doesn’t need to be complicated. For instance, try purchasing precut veggies, cooked chicken breasts, or other healthy convenience options. You can then combine them in packable containers to prep a few meals at a time. For less busy weeks, consider cooking the protein yourself and whipping up basic sauces (like pesto and vinaigrette) to jazz up your meals.

“I worked with a resident who was gaining weight each month,” recalled Ms. Margulies. “She would skip lunch, grab a random snack, then wait until she got home to eat anything she could find.”

Encouraged by Ms. Margulies, she prepared and portioned one or two balanced dinners each week, which she’d later reheat. She also bought fresh and dried fruit and high-protein snacks, keeping single servings in her car to eat on the way home.

Similarly, Jess DeGore, RD, LDN, CDCES, CHWC, a diabetes educator and owner of Dietitian Jess Nutrition, recalled an ob.gyn. client who constantly skipped meals and relied on vending machine snacks. To combat her resulting energy crashes, she followed Ms. DeGore’s advice to prep workday lunches (like quinoa salads) over the weekend and bring fruit and nut snacks to work.
 

Automate as Much as You Can

If healthy is already on hand, you’ll eat healthy, said Ms. Andrews. Build up a snack stash focusing on fiber and protein. Tote a lunch bag with a cooler pack if needed. Some suggestions:

• Oatmeal packets
• Individual Greek yogurt cups or drinkable yogurts
• Protein bars
• Protein shakes
• Fresh fruit
• Fresh veggie sticks
• Nuts, dried chickpeas, or edamame
• Trail mix
• Single servings of hummus, nut butter, or guacamole
• Dried seaweed snacks
• Whole grain crackers
• Hard-boiled eggs
• String cheese
• Peanut butter sandwich
• 95% cacao chocolate bar

Try a Meal Delivery Service

Meal delivery services can be pricey, but potentially worth the expense. By bringing meals or having them sent to your office, you won’t have to find time to go to the cafeteria and stand in line, noted Janese S. Laster, MD, an internal medicine, gastroenterology, obesity medicine, and nutrition physician and founder of Gut Theory Total Digestive Care. Instead, “you’ll have something to warm up and eat while writing notes or in between patients,” she said. Plus, “you won’t have an excuse to skip meals.”

Hydration Yes, Junk Drinks No

The following can be filed in the Doctors-Know-It-But-Don’t-Always-Do-It section: “Hunger can be mistaken for thirst,” said Ms. Margulies. “Staying hydrated will help you better assess whether you’re hungry or thirsty.” Choose water over soda or energy drinks, she added, to hydrate your body without unnecessary extra sugars, sugar substitutes, calories, caffeine, or sodium — all of which can affect how you feel.

Advocate for Your Health

Convincing your institution to make changes might be difficult or even impossible, but consider asking your workplace to implement initiatives like these to boost provider nutrition, suggested Jabe Brown, BHSc (Nat), founder of Melbourne Functional Medicine:

• Establish protected break times when doctors can step away from their duties to eat
• Add more nutritious cafeteria options, like salads, whole grains, and lean proteins
• Overhaul vending machine offerings
• Offer educational workshops on nutrition

Be Tenacious About Good Eating

For Dr. Toomer, that meant taking several years off from work to improve her health. After losing more than 100 pounds, she founded TOTAL Weight Care Institute to help other healthcare professionals follow in her footsteps.

For you, the path toward a healthier diet might be gradual — grabbing a more nutritious snack, spending an extra hour per week on food shopping or prep, remembering a water bottle. Whatever it looks like, make realistic lifestyle tweaks that work for you.

Maybe even try that apple-a-day thing.
 

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

Eat as fast as you can whenever you can.

That was the med student mindset around food, as Catherine Harmon Toomer, MD, discovered during her school years. “Without a good system in place to counter that,” she explains, “unhealthy eating can get out of control, and that’s what happened to me.”

After med school, things got worse for Dr. Toomer. By her second year in practice as a family medicine physician, she’d gained a lot of weight and had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and cardiomyopathy. At 36, she went into congestive heart failure and was told she likely had 5 years to live.

A moment she described as “a huge wake-up call.”

Dr. Toomer is far from alone in her struggles to balance working in medicine and eating healthfully.

“Physicians face unique stresses because of the ubiquity of junk food in the clinical setting, easy use of food as a reward and stress reliever, and lack of time to create better wellness habits while counseling patients to do exactly that,” said John La Puma, MD, FACP, internist and cofounder of ChefMD and founder of Chef Clinic.

There is also the culture of medicine, which Dr. Toomer said looks down on self-care. “Even with break times, patient needs come before our own.” So, you sit down to eat, and there’s an emergency. Your clinic closes for lunch, but the phones still ring, and patients continue to email questions. Charting is also so time-consuming that “everything else gets put on the back burner.”

Sticking to a nutritious diet in this context can feel hopeless. But it isn’t. Really. Here are some doctor-tested, real-life ways you can nourish yourself while getting it all done.
 

Something Is Always Better Than Nothing

Sure, you might not be able to eat a balanced lunch or dinner while at work, conceded Amy Margulies, RD, LDN, owner of The Rebellious RD. But try to focus on the bigger picture and take small steps.

First, make sure you eat something, Ms. Margulies advised. “Skipping meals can lead to overeating later and negatively impact energy levels and concentration.”

Lisa Andrews, MEd, RD, LD, owner of Sound Bites Nutrition, recalled one of her patients, a gastrointestinal surgeon with reactive hypoglycemia and fatigue. “She was experiencing energy crashes mid-afternoon,” she said. It was only after starting to eat every 4-5 hours that her patient felt better.

Of course, this is easier said than done. “When you are running from one patient to the other and trying to keep on time with your schedule, there is very little time for eating and no time at all for cooking or even heating up food,” recalled Hélène Bertrand, MD, author of Low Back Pain: 3 Steps to Relief in 2 Minutes.

But during her 55 years as a family medicine physician, Dr. Bertrand found ways to improve (if not perfect) the situation. She lunched on nuts or seeds during the day or grabbed a 95% cacao chocolate bar — higher in antioxidants and lower in sugar than a candy bar.

If you don’t have time for breakfast, try drinking a complete protein shake while driving to work, Dr. Toomer recommended. “It’s not ideal, but it’s better than nothing.” Similarly, if the only way you’ll eat a high-protein, lower-carb snack like hummus is with potato chips, go for it, she said.

Basically, don’t be type A striving for perfection. Take good enough when you can and balance the rest when you have time.
 

Torpedo Temptation

From free treats in the break room to always-present pizza for residents, high-fat, high-sugar, low-nutrient fare is a constant temptation. “I worked with a physician who would bring a balanced lunch to work every day, then find whatever sweet was around for his afternoon treat,” recalled Ms. Margulies.“The cookies, cakes, and donuts were starting to add up — and stopping at one wasn’t working for him.”

What did work was Ms. Margulies’ suggestion to bring a single serving of dark chocolate and fruit to savor during a longer break. “Bringing your favorite treats in appropriate portions can help you stick with your plan throughout the day,” she explained, and you’ll have an easier time resisting what’s in the break room. “When you desire a treat, tell yourself you have what you need and don’t need to indulge in the ‘free food’ just because it’s there. You have power over your choices.”

How about tricking yourself into perceiving cherry tomatoes as treats? That might be unusual, but one of Dr. La Puma’s physician patients did just that, displaying the produce in a candy dish on his office counter. Not only did this strategy help remind him to snack healthfully, it also prompted his patients to ask about eating better, he said.
 

Preparation Is Still Underrated

Many people find meal prepping intimidating. But it doesn’t need to be complicated. For instance, try purchasing precut veggies, cooked chicken breasts, or other healthy convenience options. You can then combine them in packable containers to prep a few meals at a time. For less busy weeks, consider cooking the protein yourself and whipping up basic sauces (like pesto and vinaigrette) to jazz up your meals.

“I worked with a resident who was gaining weight each month,” recalled Ms. Margulies. “She would skip lunch, grab a random snack, then wait until she got home to eat anything she could find.”

Encouraged by Ms. Margulies, she prepared and portioned one or two balanced dinners each week, which she’d later reheat. She also bought fresh and dried fruit and high-protein snacks, keeping single servings in her car to eat on the way home.

Similarly, Jess DeGore, RD, LDN, CDCES, CHWC, a diabetes educator and owner of Dietitian Jess Nutrition, recalled an ob.gyn. client who constantly skipped meals and relied on vending machine snacks. To combat her resulting energy crashes, she followed Ms. DeGore’s advice to prep workday lunches (like quinoa salads) over the weekend and bring fruit and nut snacks to work.
 

Automate as Much as You Can

If healthy is already on hand, you’ll eat healthy, said Ms. Andrews. Build up a snack stash focusing on fiber and protein. Tote a lunch bag with a cooler pack if needed. Some suggestions:

• Oatmeal packets
• Individual Greek yogurt cups or drinkable yogurts
• Protein bars
• Protein shakes
• Fresh fruit
• Fresh veggie sticks
• Nuts, dried chickpeas, or edamame
• Trail mix
• Single servings of hummus, nut butter, or guacamole
• Dried seaweed snacks
• Whole grain crackers
• Hard-boiled eggs
• String cheese
• Peanut butter sandwich
• 95% cacao chocolate bar

Try a Meal Delivery Service

Meal delivery services can be pricey, but potentially worth the expense. By bringing meals or having them sent to your office, you won’t have to find time to go to the cafeteria and stand in line, noted Janese S. Laster, MD, an internal medicine, gastroenterology, obesity medicine, and nutrition physician and founder of Gut Theory Total Digestive Care. Instead, “you’ll have something to warm up and eat while writing notes or in between patients,” she said. Plus, “you won’t have an excuse to skip meals.”

Hydration Yes, Junk Drinks No

The following can be filed in the Doctors-Know-It-But-Don’t-Always-Do-It section: “Hunger can be mistaken for thirst,” said Ms. Margulies. “Staying hydrated will help you better assess whether you’re hungry or thirsty.” Choose water over soda or energy drinks, she added, to hydrate your body without unnecessary extra sugars, sugar substitutes, calories, caffeine, or sodium — all of which can affect how you feel.

Advocate for Your Health

Convincing your institution to make changes might be difficult or even impossible, but consider asking your workplace to implement initiatives like these to boost provider nutrition, suggested Jabe Brown, BHSc (Nat), founder of Melbourne Functional Medicine:

• Establish protected break times when doctors can step away from their duties to eat
• Add more nutritious cafeteria options, like salads, whole grains, and lean proteins
• Overhaul vending machine offerings
• Offer educational workshops on nutrition

Be Tenacious About Good Eating

For Dr. Toomer, that meant taking several years off from work to improve her health. After losing more than 100 pounds, she founded TOTAL Weight Care Institute to help other healthcare professionals follow in her footsteps.

For you, the path toward a healthier diet might be gradual — grabbing a more nutritious snack, spending an extra hour per week on food shopping or prep, remembering a water bottle. Whatever it looks like, make realistic lifestyle tweaks that work for you.

Maybe even try that apple-a-day thing.
 

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

Eat as fast as you can whenever you can.

That was the med student mindset around food, as Catherine Harmon Toomer, MD, discovered during her school years. “Without a good system in place to counter that,” she explains, “unhealthy eating can get out of control, and that’s what happened to me.”

After med school, things got worse for Dr. Toomer. By her second year in practice as a family medicine physician, she’d gained a lot of weight and had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and cardiomyopathy. At 36, she went into congestive heart failure and was told she likely had 5 years to live.

A moment she described as “a huge wake-up call.”

Dr. Toomer is far from alone in her struggles to balance working in medicine and eating healthfully.

“Physicians face unique stresses because of the ubiquity of junk food in the clinical setting, easy use of food as a reward and stress reliever, and lack of time to create better wellness habits while counseling patients to do exactly that,” said John La Puma, MD, FACP, internist and cofounder of ChefMD and founder of Chef Clinic.

There is also the culture of medicine, which Dr. Toomer said looks down on self-care. “Even with break times, patient needs come before our own.” So, you sit down to eat, and there’s an emergency. Your clinic closes for lunch, but the phones still ring, and patients continue to email questions. Charting is also so time-consuming that “everything else gets put on the back burner.”

Sticking to a nutritious diet in this context can feel hopeless. But it isn’t. Really. Here are some doctor-tested, real-life ways you can nourish yourself while getting it all done.
 

Something Is Always Better Than Nothing

Sure, you might not be able to eat a balanced lunch or dinner while at work, conceded Amy Margulies, RD, LDN, owner of The Rebellious RD. But try to focus on the bigger picture and take small steps.

First, make sure you eat something, Ms. Margulies advised. “Skipping meals can lead to overeating later and negatively impact energy levels and concentration.”

Lisa Andrews, MEd, RD, LD, owner of Sound Bites Nutrition, recalled one of her patients, a gastrointestinal surgeon with reactive hypoglycemia and fatigue. “She was experiencing energy crashes mid-afternoon,” she said. It was only after starting to eat every 4-5 hours that her patient felt better.

Of course, this is easier said than done. “When you are running from one patient to the other and trying to keep on time with your schedule, there is very little time for eating and no time at all for cooking or even heating up food,” recalled Hélène Bertrand, MD, author of Low Back Pain: 3 Steps to Relief in 2 Minutes.

But during her 55 years as a family medicine physician, Dr. Bertrand found ways to improve (if not perfect) the situation. She lunched on nuts or seeds during the day or grabbed a 95% cacao chocolate bar — higher in antioxidants and lower in sugar than a candy bar.

If you don’t have time for breakfast, try drinking a complete protein shake while driving to work, Dr. Toomer recommended. “It’s not ideal, but it’s better than nothing.” Similarly, if the only way you’ll eat a high-protein, lower-carb snack like hummus is with potato chips, go for it, she said.

Basically, don’t be type A striving for perfection. Take good enough when you can and balance the rest when you have time.
 

Torpedo Temptation

From free treats in the break room to always-present pizza for residents, high-fat, high-sugar, low-nutrient fare is a constant temptation. “I worked with a physician who would bring a balanced lunch to work every day, then find whatever sweet was around for his afternoon treat,” recalled Ms. Margulies.“The cookies, cakes, and donuts were starting to add up — and stopping at one wasn’t working for him.”

What did work was Ms. Margulies’ suggestion to bring a single serving of dark chocolate and fruit to savor during a longer break. “Bringing your favorite treats in appropriate portions can help you stick with your plan throughout the day,” she explained, and you’ll have an easier time resisting what’s in the break room. “When you desire a treat, tell yourself you have what you need and don’t need to indulge in the ‘free food’ just because it’s there. You have power over your choices.”

How about tricking yourself into perceiving cherry tomatoes as treats? That might be unusual, but one of Dr. La Puma’s physician patients did just that, displaying the produce in a candy dish on his office counter. Not only did this strategy help remind him to snack healthfully, it also prompted his patients to ask about eating better, he said.
 

Preparation Is Still Underrated

Many people find meal prepping intimidating. But it doesn’t need to be complicated. For instance, try purchasing precut veggies, cooked chicken breasts, or other healthy convenience options. You can then combine them in packable containers to prep a few meals at a time. For less busy weeks, consider cooking the protein yourself and whipping up basic sauces (like pesto and vinaigrette) to jazz up your meals.

“I worked with a resident who was gaining weight each month,” recalled Ms. Margulies. “She would skip lunch, grab a random snack, then wait until she got home to eat anything she could find.”

Encouraged by Ms. Margulies, she prepared and portioned one or two balanced dinners each week, which she’d later reheat. She also bought fresh and dried fruit and high-protein snacks, keeping single servings in her car to eat on the way home.

Similarly, Jess DeGore, RD, LDN, CDCES, CHWC, a diabetes educator and owner of Dietitian Jess Nutrition, recalled an ob.gyn. client who constantly skipped meals and relied on vending machine snacks. To combat her resulting energy crashes, she followed Ms. DeGore’s advice to prep workday lunches (like quinoa salads) over the weekend and bring fruit and nut snacks to work.
 

Automate as Much as You Can

If healthy is already on hand, you’ll eat healthy, said Ms. Andrews. Build up a snack stash focusing on fiber and protein. Tote a lunch bag with a cooler pack if needed. Some suggestions:

• Oatmeal packets
• Individual Greek yogurt cups or drinkable yogurts
• Protein bars
• Protein shakes
• Fresh fruit
• Fresh veggie sticks
• Nuts, dried chickpeas, or edamame
• Trail mix
• Single servings of hummus, nut butter, or guacamole
• Dried seaweed snacks
• Whole grain crackers
• Hard-boiled eggs
• String cheese
• Peanut butter sandwich
• 95% cacao chocolate bar

Try a Meal Delivery Service

Meal delivery services can be pricey, but potentially worth the expense. By bringing meals or having them sent to your office, you won’t have to find time to go to the cafeteria and stand in line, noted Janese S. Laster, MD, an internal medicine, gastroenterology, obesity medicine, and nutrition physician and founder of Gut Theory Total Digestive Care. Instead, “you’ll have something to warm up and eat while writing notes or in between patients,” she said. Plus, “you won’t have an excuse to skip meals.”

Hydration Yes, Junk Drinks No

The following can be filed in the Doctors-Know-It-But-Don’t-Always-Do-It section: “Hunger can be mistaken for thirst,” said Ms. Margulies. “Staying hydrated will help you better assess whether you’re hungry or thirsty.” Choose water over soda or energy drinks, she added, to hydrate your body without unnecessary extra sugars, sugar substitutes, calories, caffeine, or sodium — all of which can affect how you feel.

Advocate for Your Health

Convincing your institution to make changes might be difficult or even impossible, but consider asking your workplace to implement initiatives like these to boost provider nutrition, suggested Jabe Brown, BHSc (Nat), founder of Melbourne Functional Medicine:

• Establish protected break times when doctors can step away from their duties to eat
• Add more nutritious cafeteria options, like salads, whole grains, and lean proteins
• Overhaul vending machine offerings
• Offer educational workshops on nutrition

Be Tenacious About Good Eating

For Dr. Toomer, that meant taking several years off from work to improve her health. After losing more than 100 pounds, she founded TOTAL Weight Care Institute to help other healthcare professionals follow in her footsteps.

For you, the path toward a healthier diet might be gradual — grabbing a more nutritious snack, spending an extra hour per week on food shopping or prep, remembering a water bottle. Whatever it looks like, make realistic lifestyle tweaks that work for you.

Maybe even try that apple-a-day thing.
 

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

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

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

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

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

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

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

WASHINGTON — Advancing treatment for what has been variably called chronic Lyme and posttreatment Lyme disease (PTLD) is under the eyes of a National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee of experts for the first time — a year after the NASEM shone a spotlight on the need to accelerate research on chronic illnesses that follow known or suspected infections.

The committee will not make recommendations on specific approaches to diagnosis and treatment when it issues a report in early 2025 but will instead present “consensus findings” on treatment for chronic illness associated with Lyme disease, including recommendations for advancing treatment.

There have been only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted on what the committee is calling Lyme Infection-Associated Chronic Illness (Lyme IACI) for now, and no National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded RCTs in the past 20 years or so. It’s an area void of the US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies, void of any consensus on the off-label use of medications, and without any current standard of care or proven mechanisms and pathophysiology, said John Aucott, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Medicine Lyme Disease Clinical Research Center, Baltimore, one of the invited speakers at a public meeting held by the NASEM in Washington, DC.

“The best way to look at this illness is not from the silos of infectious disease or the silos of rheumatology; you have to look across disciplines,” Dr. Aucott, also associate professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology, told the committee. “The story doesn’t fit anything I trained for in my infectious disease fellowship. Even today, I’d posit that PTLD is like an island — it’s still not connected to a lot of the mainstream of medicine.”

Rhisa Parera, who wrote and directed a 2021 documentary, Your Labs Are Normal, was one of several invited speakers who amplified the patient voice. Starting around age 7, she had pain in her knees, spine, and hips and vivid nightmares. In high school, she developed gastrointestinal issues, and in college, she developed debilitating neurologic symptoms.

Depression was her eventual diagnosis after having seen “every specialist in the book,” she said. At age 29, she received a positive western blot test and a Lyme disease diagnosis, at which point “I was prescribed 4 weeks of doxycycline and left in the dark,” the 34-year-old Black patient told the committee. Her health improved only after she began working with an “LLMD,” or Lyme-literate medical doctor (a term used in the patient community), while she lived with her mother and did not work, she said.

“I don’t share my Lyme disease history with other doctors. It’s pointless when you have those who will laugh at you, say you’re fine if you were treated, or just deny the disease completely,” Ms. Parera said. “We need this to be taught in medical school. It’s a literal emergency.”
 

Incidence and Potential Mechanisms

Limited research has suggested that 10%-20% of patients with Lyme disease develop persistent symptoms after standard antibiotic treatment advised by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Dr. Aucott said. (On its web page on chronic symptoms, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presents a more conservative range of 5%-10%.)

His own prospective cohort study at Johns Hopkins, published in 2022, found that 13.7% of 234 patients with prior Lyme disease met symptom and functional impact criteria for PTLD, compared with 4.1% of 49 participants without a history of Lyme disease — a statistically significant difference that he said should “put to rest” the question of “is it real?”

PTLD is the research case definition proposed by the IDSA in 2006; it requires that patients have prior documented Lyme disease, no other specific comorbidities, and specific symptoms (fatigue, widespread musculoskeletal pain, and/or cognitive difficulties) causing significant functional impact at least 6 months from their initial diagnosis and treatment.

In the real world, however, where diagnostics for acute Lyme disease are often inaccurate, erythema migrans is often absent, and the symptomatology of Lyme IACI is variable (and where there is no approved laboratory test or objective biomarker for diagnosing Lyme IACI), PTLD represents only a subset of a broader, heterogeneous population with persistent symptoms.

The term “Lyme IACI,” pronounced “Lyme eye-ACK-ee” at the meeting, builds on conversations at the 2023 NASEM workshop on infection-associated chronic illnesses and “encompasses a variety of terms that are used,” including PTLD, PTLD syndrome, persistent Lyme disease, and chronic Lyme disease, according to committee documents. Symptoms are distinct from the known complications of Lyme disease, such as arthritis or carditis.

The findings from Dr. Aucott’s SLICE cohort likely represent “the best outcome,” he said. They’re “probably not generalizable to a community setting where we see lots of missed diagnoses and delayed diagnoses,” as well as other tick-borne coinfections.

One of the challenges in designing future trials, in fact, relates to enrollment criteria and whether to use strict inclusion and exclusion criteria associated with the IDSA definition or take a broader approach to trial enrollment, he and others said. “You want to enroll patients for whom there’s no controversy that they’ve had Lyme infection ... for a study people believe in,” Dr. Aucott said during a discussion period, noting that it’s typical to screen over 100 patients to find one enrollee. “But it’s a tension we’re having.”

Timothy Sellati, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Global Lyme Alliance, urged change. “It’s really important to try to figure out how to alter our thinking on identifying and diagnosing chronic Lyme patients because they need to be recruited into clinical trials,” he said during his presentation.

“We think the best way to do this is to [develop and] employ composite diagnostic testing” that looks at unique Borrelia signatures (eg, protein, DNA, RNA, or metabolites), genetic and/or epigenetic signatures, inflammation signatures, T-cell-independent antibody signatures, and other elements, Dr. Sellati said.

Researchers designing treatment trials also face unknowns, Dr. Aucott and others said, about the role of potential mechanisms of Lyme IACI, from persistent Borrelia burgdorferi (or Borrelia mayonii) infection or the persistence of bacterial remnants (eg, nucleic acids or peptidoglycans) to infection-triggered pathology such as persistent immune dysregulation, chronic inflammation, autoimmunity, microbiome alterations, and dysautonomia and other neural network alterations.

The NASEM’s spotlight on Lyme IACI follows its long COVID-driven push last year to advance a common research agenda in infection-associated chronic illnesses. Investigators see common symptoms and potential shared mechanisms between long COVID, Lyme IACI, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and other complex chronic illnesses following infections.

At the Lyme IACI meeting, invited speakers described parts of the research landscape. Avindra Nath, MD, of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, for instance, described a recently published deep phenotyping study of 17 patients with ME/CFS that found decreased central catecholamine synthesis, circuit dysfunction of integrative brain regions, and immune profiling differences (eg, defects in B-cell maturation or T-cell exhaustion), compared with matched controls, that suggest the persistence of microbial antigens.

And John Leong, MD, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, described his lab’s focus on understanding the microbe-host interactions that enable bloodstream dissemination and tissue invasion of B burgdorferi to take hold, increasing the risk for persistent symptoms. Other research at Tufts, he noted during a discussion period, has demonstrated the persistence of B burgdorferi to antibiotics in microtiter dishes. “Those organisms that survive are really difficult to eradicate in vitro,” Dr. Leong said.

Other physician investigators described research on nociplastic pain — a category of pain that can be triggered by infections, causing both amplified sensory processing and augmented central nervous system pain — and on whether reactivation of the Epstein-Barr virus could potentiate autoimmunity in the context of Borrelia infection.

Researchers are ready to test therapies while pathophysiology is unraveled — provided there is funding, Dr. Aucott said. The Clinical Trials Network for Lyme and Other Tick-Borne Diseases, coordinated by Brian Fallon, MD, of Columbia University, New York City, and funded several years ago by the Steven & Alexandra Cohen Foundation, has a slate of small pilot studies underway or being planned that address potential mechanisms (eg, studies of pulse intravenous ceftriaxone, tetracycline, transauricular vagus nerve stimulation, and mast cell modulation). And should full multisite trials be designed and funded, the network is ready with an infrastructure.
 

Need for Patient-Centered Outcomes

Persistent symptomatology is on the NIH’s radar screen. Efforts to understand causes were part of a strategic tick-borne disease research plan developed by the NIH in 2019. And in 2023, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded seven projects addressing persistent symptoms that will run through 2028, C. Benjamin Beard, PhD, deputy division director of the CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Disease, said at the NASEM committee meeting.

Patient advocates maintained that too much emphasis is placed on tick biology and pathophysiology. When Wendy Adams, research grant director and advisory board member of the Bay Area Lyme Foundation, and a colleague analyzed NIAID tick-borne disease funding from 2013 to 2021, they found that 75% of the funding went toward basic research, 15% to translational research, and “only 3% went to clinical research,” Ms. Adams told the committee.

Only 3% of the basic research budget was spent on coinfections, she said, and only 1% was spent on neurologic disease associated with tick-borne infections, both of which are survey-defined patient priorities. Moreover, “12% of the overall NIAID [tick-borne diseases] budget was spent on tick biology,” she said.

Research needs to involve community physicians who are utilizing the guidelines and approaches of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society to treat most patients with Lyme IACI, Ms. Adams said. “They have data to be mined,” she said, as does LymeDisease.org, which maintains a patient registry, MyLymeData, with over 18,000 patients. The organization has published two treatment studies, including one on antibiotic treatment response.

Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, CEO of LymeDisease.org and principal investigator of MyLymeData, stressed the importance of using patient-centered outcomes that incorporate minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). “A change in the SF-36 score [without consideration of MCIDs] is not inherently important or meaningful to patients,” she said, referring to the SF-36 survey of health-related quality of life.

“This may seem like an esoteric issue, but two of the four clinical trials done [on retreatment of] persistent Lyme disease used the SF-36 as their outcome measure, and those studies, led by [Mark] Klempner, concluded that retreatment was not effective,” Ms. Johnson said. “Patients have been and continue to be harmed by [this research] because they’re told by physicians that antibiotics don’t work.”

A 2012 biostatistical review of these four RCTs — trials that helped inform the 2006 IDSA treatment guidelines — concluded that the Klempner studies “set the bar for treatment success too high,” Ms. Johnson said. Three of the four trials were likely underpowered to detect clinically meaningful treatment effects, the review also found.

The NASEM committee will hold additional public meetings and review a wide range of literature through this year. The formation of the committee was recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services Tick-Borne Disease Working Group that was established by Congress in 2016 and concluded its work in 2022. The committee’s work is funded by the Cohen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Advancing treatment for what has been variably called chronic Lyme and posttreatment Lyme disease (PTLD) is under the eyes of a National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee of experts for the first time — a year after the NASEM shone a spotlight on the need to accelerate research on chronic illnesses that follow known or suspected infections.

The committee will not make recommendations on specific approaches to diagnosis and treatment when it issues a report in early 2025 but will instead present “consensus findings” on treatment for chronic illness associated with Lyme disease, including recommendations for advancing treatment.

There have been only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted on what the committee is calling Lyme Infection-Associated Chronic Illness (Lyme IACI) for now, and no National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded RCTs in the past 20 years or so. It’s an area void of the US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies, void of any consensus on the off-label use of medications, and without any current standard of care or proven mechanisms and pathophysiology, said John Aucott, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Medicine Lyme Disease Clinical Research Center, Baltimore, one of the invited speakers at a public meeting held by the NASEM in Washington, DC.

“The best way to look at this illness is not from the silos of infectious disease or the silos of rheumatology; you have to look across disciplines,” Dr. Aucott, also associate professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology, told the committee. “The story doesn’t fit anything I trained for in my infectious disease fellowship. Even today, I’d posit that PTLD is like an island — it’s still not connected to a lot of the mainstream of medicine.”

Rhisa Parera, who wrote and directed a 2021 documentary, Your Labs Are Normal, was one of several invited speakers who amplified the patient voice. Starting around age 7, she had pain in her knees, spine, and hips and vivid nightmares. In high school, she developed gastrointestinal issues, and in college, she developed debilitating neurologic symptoms.

Depression was her eventual diagnosis after having seen “every specialist in the book,” she said. At age 29, she received a positive western blot test and a Lyme disease diagnosis, at which point “I was prescribed 4 weeks of doxycycline and left in the dark,” the 34-year-old Black patient told the committee. Her health improved only after she began working with an “LLMD,” or Lyme-literate medical doctor (a term used in the patient community), while she lived with her mother and did not work, she said.

“I don’t share my Lyme disease history with other doctors. It’s pointless when you have those who will laugh at you, say you’re fine if you were treated, or just deny the disease completely,” Ms. Parera said. “We need this to be taught in medical school. It’s a literal emergency.”
 

Incidence and Potential Mechanisms

Limited research has suggested that 10%-20% of patients with Lyme disease develop persistent symptoms after standard antibiotic treatment advised by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Dr. Aucott said. (On its web page on chronic symptoms, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presents a more conservative range of 5%-10%.)

His own prospective cohort study at Johns Hopkins, published in 2022, found that 13.7% of 234 patients with prior Lyme disease met symptom and functional impact criteria for PTLD, compared with 4.1% of 49 participants without a history of Lyme disease — a statistically significant difference that he said should “put to rest” the question of “is it real?”

PTLD is the research case definition proposed by the IDSA in 2006; it requires that patients have prior documented Lyme disease, no other specific comorbidities, and specific symptoms (fatigue, widespread musculoskeletal pain, and/or cognitive difficulties) causing significant functional impact at least 6 months from their initial diagnosis and treatment.

In the real world, however, where diagnostics for acute Lyme disease are often inaccurate, erythema migrans is often absent, and the symptomatology of Lyme IACI is variable (and where there is no approved laboratory test or objective biomarker for diagnosing Lyme IACI), PTLD represents only a subset of a broader, heterogeneous population with persistent symptoms.

The term “Lyme IACI,” pronounced “Lyme eye-ACK-ee” at the meeting, builds on conversations at the 2023 NASEM workshop on infection-associated chronic illnesses and “encompasses a variety of terms that are used,” including PTLD, PTLD syndrome, persistent Lyme disease, and chronic Lyme disease, according to committee documents. Symptoms are distinct from the known complications of Lyme disease, such as arthritis or carditis.

The findings from Dr. Aucott’s SLICE cohort likely represent “the best outcome,” he said. They’re “probably not generalizable to a community setting where we see lots of missed diagnoses and delayed diagnoses,” as well as other tick-borne coinfections.

One of the challenges in designing future trials, in fact, relates to enrollment criteria and whether to use strict inclusion and exclusion criteria associated with the IDSA definition or take a broader approach to trial enrollment, he and others said. “You want to enroll patients for whom there’s no controversy that they’ve had Lyme infection ... for a study people believe in,” Dr. Aucott said during a discussion period, noting that it’s typical to screen over 100 patients to find one enrollee. “But it’s a tension we’re having.”

Timothy Sellati, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Global Lyme Alliance, urged change. “It’s really important to try to figure out how to alter our thinking on identifying and diagnosing chronic Lyme patients because they need to be recruited into clinical trials,” he said during his presentation.

“We think the best way to do this is to [develop and] employ composite diagnostic testing” that looks at unique Borrelia signatures (eg, protein, DNA, RNA, or metabolites), genetic and/or epigenetic signatures, inflammation signatures, T-cell-independent antibody signatures, and other elements, Dr. Sellati said.

Researchers designing treatment trials also face unknowns, Dr. Aucott and others said, about the role of potential mechanisms of Lyme IACI, from persistent Borrelia burgdorferi (or Borrelia mayonii) infection or the persistence of bacterial remnants (eg, nucleic acids or peptidoglycans) to infection-triggered pathology such as persistent immune dysregulation, chronic inflammation, autoimmunity, microbiome alterations, and dysautonomia and other neural network alterations.

The NASEM’s spotlight on Lyme IACI follows its long COVID-driven push last year to advance a common research agenda in infection-associated chronic illnesses. Investigators see common symptoms and potential shared mechanisms between long COVID, Lyme IACI, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and other complex chronic illnesses following infections.

At the Lyme IACI meeting, invited speakers described parts of the research landscape. Avindra Nath, MD, of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, for instance, described a recently published deep phenotyping study of 17 patients with ME/CFS that found decreased central catecholamine synthesis, circuit dysfunction of integrative brain regions, and immune profiling differences (eg, defects in B-cell maturation or T-cell exhaustion), compared with matched controls, that suggest the persistence of microbial antigens.

And John Leong, MD, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, described his lab’s focus on understanding the microbe-host interactions that enable bloodstream dissemination and tissue invasion of B burgdorferi to take hold, increasing the risk for persistent symptoms. Other research at Tufts, he noted during a discussion period, has demonstrated the persistence of B burgdorferi to antibiotics in microtiter dishes. “Those organisms that survive are really difficult to eradicate in vitro,” Dr. Leong said.

Other physician investigators described research on nociplastic pain — a category of pain that can be triggered by infections, causing both amplified sensory processing and augmented central nervous system pain — and on whether reactivation of the Epstein-Barr virus could potentiate autoimmunity in the context of Borrelia infection.

Researchers are ready to test therapies while pathophysiology is unraveled — provided there is funding, Dr. Aucott said. The Clinical Trials Network for Lyme and Other Tick-Borne Diseases, coordinated by Brian Fallon, MD, of Columbia University, New York City, and funded several years ago by the Steven & Alexandra Cohen Foundation, has a slate of small pilot studies underway or being planned that address potential mechanisms (eg, studies of pulse intravenous ceftriaxone, tetracycline, transauricular vagus nerve stimulation, and mast cell modulation). And should full multisite trials be designed and funded, the network is ready with an infrastructure.
 

Need for Patient-Centered Outcomes

Persistent symptomatology is on the NIH’s radar screen. Efforts to understand causes were part of a strategic tick-borne disease research plan developed by the NIH in 2019. And in 2023, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded seven projects addressing persistent symptoms that will run through 2028, C. Benjamin Beard, PhD, deputy division director of the CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Disease, said at the NASEM committee meeting.

Patient advocates maintained that too much emphasis is placed on tick biology and pathophysiology. When Wendy Adams, research grant director and advisory board member of the Bay Area Lyme Foundation, and a colleague analyzed NIAID tick-borne disease funding from 2013 to 2021, they found that 75% of the funding went toward basic research, 15% to translational research, and “only 3% went to clinical research,” Ms. Adams told the committee.

Only 3% of the basic research budget was spent on coinfections, she said, and only 1% was spent on neurologic disease associated with tick-borne infections, both of which are survey-defined patient priorities. Moreover, “12% of the overall NIAID [tick-borne diseases] budget was spent on tick biology,” she said.

Research needs to involve community physicians who are utilizing the guidelines and approaches of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society to treat most patients with Lyme IACI, Ms. Adams said. “They have data to be mined,” she said, as does LymeDisease.org, which maintains a patient registry, MyLymeData, with over 18,000 patients. The organization has published two treatment studies, including one on antibiotic treatment response.

Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, CEO of LymeDisease.org and principal investigator of MyLymeData, stressed the importance of using patient-centered outcomes that incorporate minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). “A change in the SF-36 score [without consideration of MCIDs] is not inherently important or meaningful to patients,” she said, referring to the SF-36 survey of health-related quality of life.

“This may seem like an esoteric issue, but two of the four clinical trials done [on retreatment of] persistent Lyme disease used the SF-36 as their outcome measure, and those studies, led by [Mark] Klempner, concluded that retreatment was not effective,” Ms. Johnson said. “Patients have been and continue to be harmed by [this research] because they’re told by physicians that antibiotics don’t work.”

A 2012 biostatistical review of these four RCTs — trials that helped inform the 2006 IDSA treatment guidelines — concluded that the Klempner studies “set the bar for treatment success too high,” Ms. Johnson said. Three of the four trials were likely underpowered to detect clinically meaningful treatment effects, the review also found.

The NASEM committee will hold additional public meetings and review a wide range of literature through this year. The formation of the committee was recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services Tick-Borne Disease Working Group that was established by Congress in 2016 and concluded its work in 2022. The committee’s work is funded by the Cohen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Advancing treatment for what has been variably called chronic Lyme and posttreatment Lyme disease (PTLD) is under the eyes of a National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee of experts for the first time — a year after the NASEM shone a spotlight on the need to accelerate research on chronic illnesses that follow known or suspected infections.

The committee will not make recommendations on specific approaches to diagnosis and treatment when it issues a report in early 2025 but will instead present “consensus findings” on treatment for chronic illness associated with Lyme disease, including recommendations for advancing treatment.

There have been only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted on what the committee is calling Lyme Infection-Associated Chronic Illness (Lyme IACI) for now, and no National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded RCTs in the past 20 years or so. It’s an area void of the US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies, void of any consensus on the off-label use of medications, and without any current standard of care or proven mechanisms and pathophysiology, said John Aucott, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Medicine Lyme Disease Clinical Research Center, Baltimore, one of the invited speakers at a public meeting held by the NASEM in Washington, DC.

“The best way to look at this illness is not from the silos of infectious disease or the silos of rheumatology; you have to look across disciplines,” Dr. Aucott, also associate professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology, told the committee. “The story doesn’t fit anything I trained for in my infectious disease fellowship. Even today, I’d posit that PTLD is like an island — it’s still not connected to a lot of the mainstream of medicine.”

Rhisa Parera, who wrote and directed a 2021 documentary, Your Labs Are Normal, was one of several invited speakers who amplified the patient voice. Starting around age 7, she had pain in her knees, spine, and hips and vivid nightmares. In high school, she developed gastrointestinal issues, and in college, she developed debilitating neurologic symptoms.

Depression was her eventual diagnosis after having seen “every specialist in the book,” she said. At age 29, she received a positive western blot test and a Lyme disease diagnosis, at which point “I was prescribed 4 weeks of doxycycline and left in the dark,” the 34-year-old Black patient told the committee. Her health improved only after she began working with an “LLMD,” or Lyme-literate medical doctor (a term used in the patient community), while she lived with her mother and did not work, she said.

“I don’t share my Lyme disease history with other doctors. It’s pointless when you have those who will laugh at you, say you’re fine if you were treated, or just deny the disease completely,” Ms. Parera said. “We need this to be taught in medical school. It’s a literal emergency.”
 

Incidence and Potential Mechanisms

Limited research has suggested that 10%-20% of patients with Lyme disease develop persistent symptoms after standard antibiotic treatment advised by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Dr. Aucott said. (On its web page on chronic symptoms, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presents a more conservative range of 5%-10%.)

His own prospective cohort study at Johns Hopkins, published in 2022, found that 13.7% of 234 patients with prior Lyme disease met symptom and functional impact criteria for PTLD, compared with 4.1% of 49 participants without a history of Lyme disease — a statistically significant difference that he said should “put to rest” the question of “is it real?”

PTLD is the research case definition proposed by the IDSA in 2006; it requires that patients have prior documented Lyme disease, no other specific comorbidities, and specific symptoms (fatigue, widespread musculoskeletal pain, and/or cognitive difficulties) causing significant functional impact at least 6 months from their initial diagnosis and treatment.

In the real world, however, where diagnostics for acute Lyme disease are often inaccurate, erythema migrans is often absent, and the symptomatology of Lyme IACI is variable (and where there is no approved laboratory test or objective biomarker for diagnosing Lyme IACI), PTLD represents only a subset of a broader, heterogeneous population with persistent symptoms.

The term “Lyme IACI,” pronounced “Lyme eye-ACK-ee” at the meeting, builds on conversations at the 2023 NASEM workshop on infection-associated chronic illnesses and “encompasses a variety of terms that are used,” including PTLD, PTLD syndrome, persistent Lyme disease, and chronic Lyme disease, according to committee documents. Symptoms are distinct from the known complications of Lyme disease, such as arthritis or carditis.

The findings from Dr. Aucott’s SLICE cohort likely represent “the best outcome,” he said. They’re “probably not generalizable to a community setting where we see lots of missed diagnoses and delayed diagnoses,” as well as other tick-borne coinfections.

One of the challenges in designing future trials, in fact, relates to enrollment criteria and whether to use strict inclusion and exclusion criteria associated with the IDSA definition or take a broader approach to trial enrollment, he and others said. “You want to enroll patients for whom there’s no controversy that they’ve had Lyme infection ... for a study people believe in,” Dr. Aucott said during a discussion period, noting that it’s typical to screen over 100 patients to find one enrollee. “But it’s a tension we’re having.”

Timothy Sellati, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Global Lyme Alliance, urged change. “It’s really important to try to figure out how to alter our thinking on identifying and diagnosing chronic Lyme patients because they need to be recruited into clinical trials,” he said during his presentation.

“We think the best way to do this is to [develop and] employ composite diagnostic testing” that looks at unique Borrelia signatures (eg, protein, DNA, RNA, or metabolites), genetic and/or epigenetic signatures, inflammation signatures, T-cell-independent antibody signatures, and other elements, Dr. Sellati said.

Researchers designing treatment trials also face unknowns, Dr. Aucott and others said, about the role of potential mechanisms of Lyme IACI, from persistent Borrelia burgdorferi (or Borrelia mayonii) infection or the persistence of bacterial remnants (eg, nucleic acids or peptidoglycans) to infection-triggered pathology such as persistent immune dysregulation, chronic inflammation, autoimmunity, microbiome alterations, and dysautonomia and other neural network alterations.

The NASEM’s spotlight on Lyme IACI follows its long COVID-driven push last year to advance a common research agenda in infection-associated chronic illnesses. Investigators see common symptoms and potential shared mechanisms between long COVID, Lyme IACI, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and other complex chronic illnesses following infections.

At the Lyme IACI meeting, invited speakers described parts of the research landscape. Avindra Nath, MD, of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, for instance, described a recently published deep phenotyping study of 17 patients with ME/CFS that found decreased central catecholamine synthesis, circuit dysfunction of integrative brain regions, and immune profiling differences (eg, defects in B-cell maturation or T-cell exhaustion), compared with matched controls, that suggest the persistence of microbial antigens.

And John Leong, MD, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, described his lab’s focus on understanding the microbe-host interactions that enable bloodstream dissemination and tissue invasion of B burgdorferi to take hold, increasing the risk for persistent symptoms. Other research at Tufts, he noted during a discussion period, has demonstrated the persistence of B burgdorferi to antibiotics in microtiter dishes. “Those organisms that survive are really difficult to eradicate in vitro,” Dr. Leong said.

Other physician investigators described research on nociplastic pain — a category of pain that can be triggered by infections, causing both amplified sensory processing and augmented central nervous system pain — and on whether reactivation of the Epstein-Barr virus could potentiate autoimmunity in the context of Borrelia infection.

Researchers are ready to test therapies while pathophysiology is unraveled — provided there is funding, Dr. Aucott said. The Clinical Trials Network for Lyme and Other Tick-Borne Diseases, coordinated by Brian Fallon, MD, of Columbia University, New York City, and funded several years ago by the Steven & Alexandra Cohen Foundation, has a slate of small pilot studies underway or being planned that address potential mechanisms (eg, studies of pulse intravenous ceftriaxone, tetracycline, transauricular vagus nerve stimulation, and mast cell modulation). And should full multisite trials be designed and funded, the network is ready with an infrastructure.
 

Need for Patient-Centered Outcomes

Persistent symptomatology is on the NIH’s radar screen. Efforts to understand causes were part of a strategic tick-borne disease research plan developed by the NIH in 2019. And in 2023, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded seven projects addressing persistent symptoms that will run through 2028, C. Benjamin Beard, PhD, deputy division director of the CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Disease, said at the NASEM committee meeting.

Patient advocates maintained that too much emphasis is placed on tick biology and pathophysiology. When Wendy Adams, research grant director and advisory board member of the Bay Area Lyme Foundation, and a colleague analyzed NIAID tick-borne disease funding from 2013 to 2021, they found that 75% of the funding went toward basic research, 15% to translational research, and “only 3% went to clinical research,” Ms. Adams told the committee.

Only 3% of the basic research budget was spent on coinfections, she said, and only 1% was spent on neurologic disease associated with tick-borne infections, both of which are survey-defined patient priorities. Moreover, “12% of the overall NIAID [tick-borne diseases] budget was spent on tick biology,” she said.

Research needs to involve community physicians who are utilizing the guidelines and approaches of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society to treat most patients with Lyme IACI, Ms. Adams said. “They have data to be mined,” she said, as does LymeDisease.org, which maintains a patient registry, MyLymeData, with over 18,000 patients. The organization has published two treatment studies, including one on antibiotic treatment response.

Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, CEO of LymeDisease.org and principal investigator of MyLymeData, stressed the importance of using patient-centered outcomes that incorporate minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). “A change in the SF-36 score [without consideration of MCIDs] is not inherently important or meaningful to patients,” she said, referring to the SF-36 survey of health-related quality of life.

“This may seem like an esoteric issue, but two of the four clinical trials done [on retreatment of] persistent Lyme disease used the SF-36 as their outcome measure, and those studies, led by [Mark] Klempner, concluded that retreatment was not effective,” Ms. Johnson said. “Patients have been and continue to be harmed by [this research] because they’re told by physicians that antibiotics don’t work.”

A 2012 biostatistical review of these four RCTs — trials that helped inform the 2006 IDSA treatment guidelines — concluded that the Klempner studies “set the bar for treatment success too high,” Ms. Johnson said. Three of the four trials were likely underpowered to detect clinically meaningful treatment effects, the review also found.

The NASEM committee will hold additional public meetings and review a wide range of literature through this year. The formation of the committee was recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services Tick-Borne Disease Working Group that was established by Congress in 2016 and concluded its work in 2022. The committee’s work is funded by the Cohen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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