MDedge Rheumatology

Over a period of 5 years, the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with psoriasis and dyslipidemia who were on statin therapy was 40% greater than that in non-psoriasis patients with dyslipidemia on statin therapy, even after adjusting for covariates, results from a large retrospective study showed.

“It is well-established that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for the development of MACE, with cardiometabolic risk factors being more prevalent and incident among patients with psoriasis,” the study’s first author Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, a dermatology research fellow at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview after the annual meeting of the Society for Investigational Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking abstract session.

Dr. Ormaza Vera

Current guidelines from the joint American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the American Academy of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force recommend statins, a lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory therapy, “for patients with psoriasis who have additional risk-enhancing factors, similar to recommendations made for the general population without psoriasis,” she noted. But how the incidence of MACE differs between patients with and without psoriasis while on statin therapy “has not been explored in real-world settings,” she added.

To address this question, the researchers used real-world data from the TriNetX health research network to identify individuals aged 18-90 years with a diagnosis of both psoriasis and lipid disorders who were undergoing treatment with statins. Those with a prior history of MACE were excluded from the analysis. Patients with lipid disorders on statin therapy, but without psoriatic disease, were matched 1:1 by age, sex, race, ethnicity, common risk factors for MACE, and medications shown to reduce MACE risk. The researchers then assessed the cohorts 5 years following their first statin prescription and used the TriNetX analytics tool to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI to evaluate the likelihood of MACE in the presence of statin therapy.

Dr. Ormaza Vera and colleagues identified 20,660 patients with psoriasis and 2,768,429 patients without psoriasis who met the criteria for analysis. After propensity score matching, each cohort included 20,660 patients with a mean age of 60 years. During the 5-year observation period, 2725 patients in the psoriasis cohort experienced MACE compared with 2203 patients in the non-psoriasis cohort (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.317-1.488).

“This was an unexpected outcome that challenges the current understanding and highlights the need for further research into tailored treatments for cardiovascular risk in psoriasis patients,” Dr. Ormaza Vera told this news organization.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, the inherent limitations of an observational study, and the use of electronic medical record data.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings imply that there is more than statin use alone to protect someone with psoriasis from having an increased risk for MACE. “This is not really surprising because statin use alone is only part of a prevention strategy in someone with psoriasis who usually has multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Green said. “On the other hand, the study only went out for 5 years and cardiovascular disease is a long accumulating process, so it could also be too early to demonstrate MACE prevention.”

The study was funded by a grant from the American Skin Association. Dr. Ormaza Vera and her coauthors reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over a period of 5 years, the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with psoriasis and dyslipidemia who were on statin therapy was 40% greater than that in non-psoriasis patients with dyslipidemia on statin therapy, even after adjusting for covariates, results from a large retrospective study showed.

“It is well-established that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for the development of MACE, with cardiometabolic risk factors being more prevalent and incident among patients with psoriasis,” the study’s first author Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, a dermatology research fellow at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview after the annual meeting of the Society for Investigational Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking abstract session.

Dr. Ormaza Vera

Current guidelines from the joint American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the American Academy of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force recommend statins, a lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory therapy, “for patients with psoriasis who have additional risk-enhancing factors, similar to recommendations made for the general population without psoriasis,” she noted. But how the incidence of MACE differs between patients with and without psoriasis while on statin therapy “has not been explored in real-world settings,” she added.

To address this question, the researchers used real-world data from the TriNetX health research network to identify individuals aged 18-90 years with a diagnosis of both psoriasis and lipid disorders who were undergoing treatment with statins. Those with a prior history of MACE were excluded from the analysis. Patients with lipid disorders on statin therapy, but without psoriatic disease, were matched 1:1 by age, sex, race, ethnicity, common risk factors for MACE, and medications shown to reduce MACE risk. The researchers then assessed the cohorts 5 years following their first statin prescription and used the TriNetX analytics tool to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI to evaluate the likelihood of MACE in the presence of statin therapy.

Dr. Ormaza Vera and colleagues identified 20,660 patients with psoriasis and 2,768,429 patients without psoriasis who met the criteria for analysis. After propensity score matching, each cohort included 20,660 patients with a mean age of 60 years. During the 5-year observation period, 2725 patients in the psoriasis cohort experienced MACE compared with 2203 patients in the non-psoriasis cohort (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.317-1.488).

“This was an unexpected outcome that challenges the current understanding and highlights the need for further research into tailored treatments for cardiovascular risk in psoriasis patients,” Dr. Ormaza Vera told this news organization.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, the inherent limitations of an observational study, and the use of electronic medical record data.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings imply that there is more than statin use alone to protect someone with psoriasis from having an increased risk for MACE. “This is not really surprising because statin use alone is only part of a prevention strategy in someone with psoriasis who usually has multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Green said. “On the other hand, the study only went out for 5 years and cardiovascular disease is a long accumulating process, so it could also be too early to demonstrate MACE prevention.”

The study was funded by a grant from the American Skin Association. Dr. Ormaza Vera and her coauthors reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over a period of 5 years, the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with psoriasis and dyslipidemia who were on statin therapy was 40% greater than that in non-psoriasis patients with dyslipidemia on statin therapy, even after adjusting for covariates, results from a large retrospective study showed.

“It is well-established that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for the development of MACE, with cardiometabolic risk factors being more prevalent and incident among patients with psoriasis,” the study’s first author Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, a dermatology research fellow at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview after the annual meeting of the Society for Investigational Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking abstract session.

Dr. Ormaza Vera

Current guidelines from the joint American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the American Academy of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force recommend statins, a lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory therapy, “for patients with psoriasis who have additional risk-enhancing factors, similar to recommendations made for the general population without psoriasis,” she noted. But how the incidence of MACE differs between patients with and without psoriasis while on statin therapy “has not been explored in real-world settings,” she added.

To address this question, the researchers used real-world data from the TriNetX health research network to identify individuals aged 18-90 years with a diagnosis of both psoriasis and lipid disorders who were undergoing treatment with statins. Those with a prior history of MACE were excluded from the analysis. Patients with lipid disorders on statin therapy, but without psoriatic disease, were matched 1:1 by age, sex, race, ethnicity, common risk factors for MACE, and medications shown to reduce MACE risk. The researchers then assessed the cohorts 5 years following their first statin prescription and used the TriNetX analytics tool to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI to evaluate the likelihood of MACE in the presence of statin therapy.

Dr. Ormaza Vera and colleagues identified 20,660 patients with psoriasis and 2,768,429 patients without psoriasis who met the criteria for analysis. After propensity score matching, each cohort included 20,660 patients with a mean age of 60 years. During the 5-year observation period, 2725 patients in the psoriasis cohort experienced MACE compared with 2203 patients in the non-psoriasis cohort (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.317-1.488).

“This was an unexpected outcome that challenges the current understanding and highlights the need for further research into tailored treatments for cardiovascular risk in psoriasis patients,” Dr. Ormaza Vera told this news organization.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, the inherent limitations of an observational study, and the use of electronic medical record data.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings imply that there is more than statin use alone to protect someone with psoriasis from having an increased risk for MACE. “This is not really surprising because statin use alone is only part of a prevention strategy in someone with psoriasis who usually has multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Green said. “On the other hand, the study only went out for 5 years and cardiovascular disease is a long accumulating process, so it could also be too early to demonstrate MACE prevention.”

The study was funded by a grant from the American Skin Association. Dr. Ormaza Vera and her coauthors reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

More than 40% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) screened positive for joint pain symptomatic of spondyloarthritis (SpA), according to a new study.

Of these patients, 75% did not have any history of arthritis.

“What we know is that a substantial proportion of patients with IBD do report musculoskeletal symptoms, and inflammatory back pain stands out as being one of the more frequent symptoms reported,” said Reem Jan, MBBS, a rheumatologist at the University of Chicago Medicine. She presented the study findings during the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) in Cleveland.

“Yet a minority of these patients are evaluated by rheumatologists. So that suggests there’s a high burden of need in the IBD population to have this joint pain evaluated and addressed,” she said during her presentation.

She presented preliminary data from an ongoing project to better understand the prevalence of inflammatory arthritis in IBD — estimates range from 17% to 39%— and the risk factors for developing arthritis in this patient population.
 

Study Details

Researchers enrolled patients from outpatient gastroenterology clinics or procedure units at NYU Langone Health, New York City; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; University of Chicago Medicine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Chicago; and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City. Additional patients were recruited from Mercy Health, a community health system in Ohio.

Upon entry into the study, participants completed a survey documenting their history with joint pain. The survey combined questions from the DETAIL and the IBIS questionnaires.

Between January 2021 and December 2022, 669 patients joined the study. In total, 41% of patients (n = 275) screened positive.

“What really stood out to us was that of all the positive screens, only about a quarter of those patients were known to have SpA,” Dr. Jan said during her presentation. “[This] means 75% of the patients who screened positive were not known to have any type of arthritic disease.”

In addition, only 24% (n = 65) of all patients who screened positive — including those with a SpA diagnosis — had seen a rheumatologist in the previous year.

Among these patients, inflammatory back pain was the most commonly reported symptom, followed by painful swelling of peripheral joints and heel pain.

Excluding patients with a SpA diagnosis, researchers also investigated which characteristics were associated with a higher likelihood of screening positive in the questionnaire. The analysis, including 588 patients, identified the following risk factors:

• Female sex: Odds ratio (OR), 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9
• Older age: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.4
• History of smoking: OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6
• History of prior IBD-related surgery: OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5
• History of biologic or small molecule therapy: OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-4.0

Future Directions

Commenting on the study, Mark Hwang, MD, a rheumatologist at UTHealth Houston, noted that it was “very interesting to see the fairly large, positive rates” of joint pain in patients with IBD, which certainly have clinical implications. However, it is not yet known if any of these patients went on to be diagnosed with SpA.

Jan noted that potential next steps include a follow-up analysis of patients who screened positive to see how many went on to see a rheumatologist and which patients were ultimately diagnosed with SpA or other inflammatory arthritis conditions.

These findings are a first step, Dr. Hwang said, and will likely “help further establish some of the validity of these questionnaires by testing in different patient populations,” he noted.

The ultimate goal is to “develop really good strategies to risk stratify IBD patients with the greatest need of rheumatologist consultation,” Dr. Jan said. “We certainly don’t want to see all these patients, so how can we figure out who really needs to be seen?”

Funding information was not available for this study. Dr. Hwang is conducting two clinical trials for psoriatic arthritis sponsored by Janssen and Eli Lilly. Dr. Jan reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 40% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) screened positive for joint pain symptomatic of spondyloarthritis (SpA), according to a new study.

Of these patients, 75% did not have any history of arthritis.

“What we know is that a substantial proportion of patients with IBD do report musculoskeletal symptoms, and inflammatory back pain stands out as being one of the more frequent symptoms reported,” said Reem Jan, MBBS, a rheumatologist at the University of Chicago Medicine. She presented the study findings during the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) in Cleveland.

“Yet a minority of these patients are evaluated by rheumatologists. So that suggests there’s a high burden of need in the IBD population to have this joint pain evaluated and addressed,” she said during her presentation.

She presented preliminary data from an ongoing project to better understand the prevalence of inflammatory arthritis in IBD — estimates range from 17% to 39%— and the risk factors for developing arthritis in this patient population.
 

Study Details

Researchers enrolled patients from outpatient gastroenterology clinics or procedure units at NYU Langone Health, New York City; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; University of Chicago Medicine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Chicago; and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City. Additional patients were recruited from Mercy Health, a community health system in Ohio.

Upon entry into the study, participants completed a survey documenting their history with joint pain. The survey combined questions from the DETAIL and the IBIS questionnaires.

Between January 2021 and December 2022, 669 patients joined the study. In total, 41% of patients (n = 275) screened positive.

“What really stood out to us was that of all the positive screens, only about a quarter of those patients were known to have SpA,” Dr. Jan said during her presentation. “[This] means 75% of the patients who screened positive were not known to have any type of arthritic disease.”

In addition, only 24% (n = 65) of all patients who screened positive — including those with a SpA diagnosis — had seen a rheumatologist in the previous year.

Among these patients, inflammatory back pain was the most commonly reported symptom, followed by painful swelling of peripheral joints and heel pain.

Excluding patients with a SpA diagnosis, researchers also investigated which characteristics were associated with a higher likelihood of screening positive in the questionnaire. The analysis, including 588 patients, identified the following risk factors:

• Female sex: Odds ratio (OR), 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9
• Older age: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.4
• History of smoking: OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6
• History of prior IBD-related surgery: OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5
• History of biologic or small molecule therapy: OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-4.0

Future Directions

Commenting on the study, Mark Hwang, MD, a rheumatologist at UTHealth Houston, noted that it was “very interesting to see the fairly large, positive rates” of joint pain in patients with IBD, which certainly have clinical implications. However, it is not yet known if any of these patients went on to be diagnosed with SpA.

Jan noted that potential next steps include a follow-up analysis of patients who screened positive to see how many went on to see a rheumatologist and which patients were ultimately diagnosed with SpA or other inflammatory arthritis conditions.

These findings are a first step, Dr. Hwang said, and will likely “help further establish some of the validity of these questionnaires by testing in different patient populations,” he noted.

The ultimate goal is to “develop really good strategies to risk stratify IBD patients with the greatest need of rheumatologist consultation,” Dr. Jan said. “We certainly don’t want to see all these patients, so how can we figure out who really needs to be seen?”

Funding information was not available for this study. Dr. Hwang is conducting two clinical trials for psoriatic arthritis sponsored by Janssen and Eli Lilly. Dr. Jan reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 40% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) screened positive for joint pain symptomatic of spondyloarthritis (SpA), according to a new study.

Of these patients, 75% did not have any history of arthritis.

“What we know is that a substantial proportion of patients with IBD do report musculoskeletal symptoms, and inflammatory back pain stands out as being one of the more frequent symptoms reported,” said Reem Jan, MBBS, a rheumatologist at the University of Chicago Medicine. She presented the study findings during the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) in Cleveland.

“Yet a minority of these patients are evaluated by rheumatologists. So that suggests there’s a high burden of need in the IBD population to have this joint pain evaluated and addressed,” she said during her presentation.

She presented preliminary data from an ongoing project to better understand the prevalence of inflammatory arthritis in IBD — estimates range from 17% to 39%— and the risk factors for developing arthritis in this patient population.
 

Study Details

Researchers enrolled patients from outpatient gastroenterology clinics or procedure units at NYU Langone Health, New York City; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; University of Chicago Medicine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Chicago; and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City. Additional patients were recruited from Mercy Health, a community health system in Ohio.

Upon entry into the study, participants completed a survey documenting their history with joint pain. The survey combined questions from the DETAIL and the IBIS questionnaires.

Between January 2021 and December 2022, 669 patients joined the study. In total, 41% of patients (n = 275) screened positive.

“What really stood out to us was that of all the positive screens, only about a quarter of those patients were known to have SpA,” Dr. Jan said during her presentation. “[This] means 75% of the patients who screened positive were not known to have any type of arthritic disease.”

In addition, only 24% (n = 65) of all patients who screened positive — including those with a SpA diagnosis — had seen a rheumatologist in the previous year.

Among these patients, inflammatory back pain was the most commonly reported symptom, followed by painful swelling of peripheral joints and heel pain.

Excluding patients with a SpA diagnosis, researchers also investigated which characteristics were associated with a higher likelihood of screening positive in the questionnaire. The analysis, including 588 patients, identified the following risk factors:

• Female sex: Odds ratio (OR), 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9
• Older age: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.4
• History of smoking: OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6
• History of prior IBD-related surgery: OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5
• History of biologic or small molecule therapy: OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-4.0

Future Directions

Commenting on the study, Mark Hwang, MD, a rheumatologist at UTHealth Houston, noted that it was “very interesting to see the fairly large, positive rates” of joint pain in patients with IBD, which certainly have clinical implications. However, it is not yet known if any of these patients went on to be diagnosed with SpA.

Jan noted that potential next steps include a follow-up analysis of patients who screened positive to see how many went on to see a rheumatologist and which patients were ultimately diagnosed with SpA or other inflammatory arthritis conditions.

These findings are a first step, Dr. Hwang said, and will likely “help further establish some of the validity of these questionnaires by testing in different patient populations,” he noted.

The ultimate goal is to “develop really good strategies to risk stratify IBD patients with the greatest need of rheumatologist consultation,” Dr. Jan said. “We certainly don’t want to see all these patients, so how can we figure out who really needs to be seen?”

Funding information was not available for this study. Dr. Hwang is conducting two clinical trials for psoriatic arthritis sponsored by Janssen and Eli Lilly. Dr. Jan reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While rheumatologists reported small pay gains this year, more than half said the specialty was underpaid.

In the Medscape Rheumatologist Compensation Report 2024, 53% said that they did not feel fairly paid given their work demands. Rheumatologist respondents reported earning an average of $286,000 annually, ranking them as the seventh lowest earners out of a total of 29 specialties surveyed. Orthopedics was the highest earning specialty, with $558,000 in annual income, and diabetes & endocrinology was the lowest earning specialty, with $256,000 in annual compensation.

In last year’s report, a rheumatologist’s average income was $281,000.

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 7000 physicians from 29 specialties, of whom 1% of respondents were rheumatologists. Most respondents (58%) were women, and 39% were men. The survey was available from October 2, 2023, to January 16, 2024.

Rheumatologists reported a 2% increase in pay compared with that cited in the previous year’s report. Physical medicine and rehabilitation had the largest bump in pay at 11%. A total of 29% of rheumatologists said their pay had increased from that in the previous year, and 18% reported fewer earnings. About half (53%) reported that their income remained the same.

When asked about physician pay in the United States, 61% of rheumatologists said most physicians were underpaid, 34% said physicians were paid fairly, and only 4% said most physicians were overpaid.

“Most physicians who take care of chronic illnesses in long-term patients are underpaid. Not all doctors are,” said one survey respondent.

Another 41% of rheumatologists said they supplemented income with additional work, including other medical-related work (30%), nonmedical-related work (5%), adding more hours to their primary job (5%), and medical moonlighting (4%). (Respondents could choose more than one option in the survey.) This is slightly lower than last year’s survey, where 46% of rheumatologist respondents said they took on additional work.

About three out of four rheumatologists said that other medical businesses or competing physician practices did not affect their income, and only 5% said these competitors considerably affected income.

Rheumatologists listed being good at their job/diagnosing (36%) as the most rewarding part of their profession, followed by gratitude from/relationships with patients (26%) and making the world a better place/helping others (19%). Difficulties with insurance and receiving fair reimbursement (22%), dealing with difficult patients (20%), having many rules and regulations (18%), and working with an electronic health record system (15%) were the most commonly reported challenges for rheumatologists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While rheumatologists reported small pay gains this year, more than half said the specialty was underpaid.

In the Medscape Rheumatologist Compensation Report 2024, 53% said that they did not feel fairly paid given their work demands. Rheumatologist respondents reported earning an average of $286,000 annually, ranking them as the seventh lowest earners out of a total of 29 specialties surveyed. Orthopedics was the highest earning specialty, with $558,000 in annual income, and diabetes & endocrinology was the lowest earning specialty, with $256,000 in annual compensation.

In last year’s report, a rheumatologist’s average income was $281,000.

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 7000 physicians from 29 specialties, of whom 1% of respondents were rheumatologists. Most respondents (58%) were women, and 39% were men. The survey was available from October 2, 2023, to January 16, 2024.

Rheumatologists reported a 2% increase in pay compared with that cited in the previous year’s report. Physical medicine and rehabilitation had the largest bump in pay at 11%. A total of 29% of rheumatologists said their pay had increased from that in the previous year, and 18% reported fewer earnings. About half (53%) reported that their income remained the same.

When asked about physician pay in the United States, 61% of rheumatologists said most physicians were underpaid, 34% said physicians were paid fairly, and only 4% said most physicians were overpaid.

“Most physicians who take care of chronic illnesses in long-term patients are underpaid. Not all doctors are,” said one survey respondent.

Another 41% of rheumatologists said they supplemented income with additional work, including other medical-related work (30%), nonmedical-related work (5%), adding more hours to their primary job (5%), and medical moonlighting (4%). (Respondents could choose more than one option in the survey.) This is slightly lower than last year’s survey, where 46% of rheumatologist respondents said they took on additional work.

About three out of four rheumatologists said that other medical businesses or competing physician practices did not affect their income, and only 5% said these competitors considerably affected income.

Rheumatologists listed being good at their job/diagnosing (36%) as the most rewarding part of their profession, followed by gratitude from/relationships with patients (26%) and making the world a better place/helping others (19%). Difficulties with insurance and receiving fair reimbursement (22%), dealing with difficult patients (20%), having many rules and regulations (18%), and working with an electronic health record system (15%) were the most commonly reported challenges for rheumatologists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While rheumatologists reported small pay gains this year, more than half said the specialty was underpaid.

In the Medscape Rheumatologist Compensation Report 2024, 53% said that they did not feel fairly paid given their work demands. Rheumatologist respondents reported earning an average of $286,000 annually, ranking them as the seventh lowest earners out of a total of 29 specialties surveyed. Orthopedics was the highest earning specialty, with $558,000 in annual income, and diabetes & endocrinology was the lowest earning specialty, with $256,000 in annual compensation.

In last year’s report, a rheumatologist’s average income was $281,000.

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 7000 physicians from 29 specialties, of whom 1% of respondents were rheumatologists. Most respondents (58%) were women, and 39% were men. The survey was available from October 2, 2023, to January 16, 2024.

Rheumatologists reported a 2% increase in pay compared with that cited in the previous year’s report. Physical medicine and rehabilitation had the largest bump in pay at 11%. A total of 29% of rheumatologists said their pay had increased from that in the previous year, and 18% reported fewer earnings. About half (53%) reported that their income remained the same.

When asked about physician pay in the United States, 61% of rheumatologists said most physicians were underpaid, 34% said physicians were paid fairly, and only 4% said most physicians were overpaid.

“Most physicians who take care of chronic illnesses in long-term patients are underpaid. Not all doctors are,” said one survey respondent.

Another 41% of rheumatologists said they supplemented income with additional work, including other medical-related work (30%), nonmedical-related work (5%), adding more hours to their primary job (5%), and medical moonlighting (4%). (Respondents could choose more than one option in the survey.) This is slightly lower than last year’s survey, where 46% of rheumatologist respondents said they took on additional work.

About three out of four rheumatologists said that other medical businesses or competing physician practices did not affect their income, and only 5% said these competitors considerably affected income.

Rheumatologists listed being good at their job/diagnosing (36%) as the most rewarding part of their profession, followed by gratitude from/relationships with patients (26%) and making the world a better place/helping others (19%). Difficulties with insurance and receiving fair reimbursement (22%), dealing with difficult patients (20%), having many rules and regulations (18%), and working with an electronic health record system (15%) were the most commonly reported challenges for rheumatologists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin use lowers the risk for gout by 32% in individuals with prediabetes; however, the treatment doesn’t change serum urate or C-reactive protein levels.

METHODOLOGY:

• Individuals with prediabetes not only are at an elevated risk for diabetes but also face an increased risk for incident gout. Many previous reports have demonstrated the efficacy of antidiabetic medications in reducing the risk for gout in adults with diabetes.
• This study assessed the gout-lowering properties of metformin in 25,064 individuals with prediabetes (age ≥ 18 years; A1c levels, 5.7%-6.4%) who had never reported A1c levels > 6.4%.
• Patients who were initiated on metformin within 18 months after the diagnosis of prediabetes (n = 1154) were propensity score–matched with those who did not initiate metformin or other antidiabetic medications in this period (n = 13,877) and were followed for a median of 3.9 years for the primary outcome of incident gout.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initiation vs no initiation of metformin resulted in 2.4 fewer cases of gout per 1000 person-years and a 32% reduced relative risk for incident gout (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96).
• The results were consistent across different subgroups stratified on the basis of sex, age (≤ 60 vs > 60 years), estimated glomerular filtration rate (≥ 90 vs < 90 mL/min/1.73 m²), and baseline diuretic use.
• Metformin initiation was not associated with significant changes in serum urate or C-reactive protein levels.
• Metformin use was associated with a reduction in A1c levels and body mass index.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors suggested that “metformin may be important in lowering gout risk in individuals with prediabetes.”

SOURCE:

Javier Marrugo, MD, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, led this study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

Although gout is more commonly observed in men, around 60% of the study population consisted of women. Owing to the observational nature of this study, exposure misclassifications might have occurred. Misclassification of the outcome is also possible due to the presence of two or more diagnostic codes for gout and/or the combination of urate-lowering therapies or colchicine with at least one diagnostic code.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared serving as consultants or receiving salary support or consulting fees from various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Metformin use lowers the risk for gout by 32% in individuals with prediabetes; however, the treatment doesn’t change serum urate or C-reactive protein levels.

METHODOLOGY:

• Individuals with prediabetes not only are at an elevated risk for diabetes but also face an increased risk for incident gout. Many previous reports have demonstrated the efficacy of antidiabetic medications in reducing the risk for gout in adults with diabetes.
• This study assessed the gout-lowering properties of metformin in 25,064 individuals with prediabetes (age ≥ 18 years; A1c levels, 5.7%-6.4%) who had never reported A1c levels > 6.4%.
• Patients who were initiated on metformin within 18 months after the diagnosis of prediabetes (n = 1154) were propensity score–matched with those who did not initiate metformin or other antidiabetic medications in this period (n = 13,877) and were followed for a median of 3.9 years for the primary outcome of incident gout.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initiation vs no initiation of metformin resulted in 2.4 fewer cases of gout per 1000 person-years and a 32% reduced relative risk for incident gout (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96).
• The results were consistent across different subgroups stratified on the basis of sex, age (≤ 60 vs > 60 years), estimated glomerular filtration rate (≥ 90 vs < 90 mL/min/1.73 m²), and baseline diuretic use.
• Metformin initiation was not associated with significant changes in serum urate or C-reactive protein levels.
• Metformin use was associated with a reduction in A1c levels and body mass index.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors suggested that “metformin may be important in lowering gout risk in individuals with prediabetes.”

SOURCE:

Javier Marrugo, MD, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, led this study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

Although gout is more commonly observed in men, around 60% of the study population consisted of women. Owing to the observational nature of this study, exposure misclassifications might have occurred. Misclassification of the outcome is also possible due to the presence of two or more diagnostic codes for gout and/or the combination of urate-lowering therapies or colchicine with at least one diagnostic code.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared serving as consultants or receiving salary support or consulting fees from various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Metformin use lowers the risk for gout by 32% in individuals with prediabetes; however, the treatment doesn’t change serum urate or C-reactive protein levels.

METHODOLOGY:

• Individuals with prediabetes not only are at an elevated risk for diabetes but also face an increased risk for incident gout. Many previous reports have demonstrated the efficacy of antidiabetic medications in reducing the risk for gout in adults with diabetes.
• This study assessed the gout-lowering properties of metformin in 25,064 individuals with prediabetes (age ≥ 18 years; A1c levels, 5.7%-6.4%) who had never reported A1c levels > 6.4%.
• Patients who were initiated on metformin within 18 months after the diagnosis of prediabetes (n = 1154) were propensity score–matched with those who did not initiate metformin or other antidiabetic medications in this period (n = 13,877) and were followed for a median of 3.9 years for the primary outcome of incident gout.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initiation vs no initiation of metformin resulted in 2.4 fewer cases of gout per 1000 person-years and a 32% reduced relative risk for incident gout (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96).
• The results were consistent across different subgroups stratified on the basis of sex, age (≤ 60 vs > 60 years), estimated glomerular filtration rate (≥ 90 vs < 90 mL/min/1.73 m²), and baseline diuretic use.
• Metformin initiation was not associated with significant changes in serum urate or C-reactive protein levels.
• Metformin use was associated with a reduction in A1c levels and body mass index.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors suggested that “metformin may be important in lowering gout risk in individuals with prediabetes.”

SOURCE:

Javier Marrugo, MD, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, led this study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

Although gout is more commonly observed in men, around 60% of the study population consisted of women. Owing to the observational nature of this study, exposure misclassifications might have occurred. Misclassification of the outcome is also possible due to the presence of two or more diagnostic codes for gout and/or the combination of urate-lowering therapies or colchicine with at least one diagnostic code.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared serving as consultants or receiving salary support or consulting fees from various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who reported high nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use did not have a higher risk for hypertension than those who reported low NSAID use.

METHODOLOGY:

• NSAIDs are first-line therapy for axSpA and are associated with a high risk for hypertension in the general population, but it’s unknown whether NSAID use increases the risk for hypertension in patients with axSpA, who are already at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and hypertension than the general population
• This study used the DESIR cohort, a multicenter cohort of patients with recent-onset axSpA in France, including 631 individuals aged 18-50 years who did not have hypertension at baseline and had 6 years of follow-up.
• NSAID use was evaluated at each follow-up visit, using the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society NSAID index.
• A score ≥ 50 was categorized as high use, and a score < 50 was considered low use.
• The primary outcome was hypertension, defined by the use of antihypertensive medication, self-reported hypertension, and/or systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mm Hg on at least two visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 39% of patients were categorized as high NSAID users.
• Over 6 years of follow-up, 70 patients (11%) developed hypertension.
• There was no significant association between high NSAID use and the risk for hypertension.

IN PRACTICE:

The study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

The research was led and presented by Jose Meade-Aguilar, MD, of Boston University School of Medicine, at the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) 2024 annual meeting in Cleveland.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a low number of hypertension events, which could be due to the younger age of participants and earlier disease stage. The study was observational, so residual or unmeasured confounding is possible.

DISCLOSURES:

The DESIR cohort study is financially supported by unrestricted grants from both the French Society for Rheumatology and Pfizer France. One coauthor reported receiving research grants and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Sanofi. Another coauthor reported receiving research grants from UCB and consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. The remaining authors had no financial, relational, or commercial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who reported high nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use did not have a higher risk for hypertension than those who reported low NSAID use.

METHODOLOGY:

• NSAIDs are first-line therapy for axSpA and are associated with a high risk for hypertension in the general population, but it’s unknown whether NSAID use increases the risk for hypertension in patients with axSpA, who are already at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and hypertension than the general population
• This study used the DESIR cohort, a multicenter cohort of patients with recent-onset axSpA in France, including 631 individuals aged 18-50 years who did not have hypertension at baseline and had 6 years of follow-up.
• NSAID use was evaluated at each follow-up visit, using the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society NSAID index.
• A score ≥ 50 was categorized as high use, and a score < 50 was considered low use.
• The primary outcome was hypertension, defined by the use of antihypertensive medication, self-reported hypertension, and/or systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mm Hg on at least two visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 39% of patients were categorized as high NSAID users.
• Over 6 years of follow-up, 70 patients (11%) developed hypertension.
• There was no significant association between high NSAID use and the risk for hypertension.

IN PRACTICE:

The study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

The research was led and presented by Jose Meade-Aguilar, MD, of Boston University School of Medicine, at the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) 2024 annual meeting in Cleveland.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a low number of hypertension events, which could be due to the younger age of participants and earlier disease stage. The study was observational, so residual or unmeasured confounding is possible.

DISCLOSURES:

The DESIR cohort study is financially supported by unrestricted grants from both the French Society for Rheumatology and Pfizer France. One coauthor reported receiving research grants and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Sanofi. Another coauthor reported receiving research grants from UCB and consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. The remaining authors had no financial, relational, or commercial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who reported high nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use did not have a higher risk for hypertension than those who reported low NSAID use.

METHODOLOGY:

• NSAIDs are first-line therapy for axSpA and are associated with a high risk for hypertension in the general population, but it’s unknown whether NSAID use increases the risk for hypertension in patients with axSpA, who are already at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and hypertension than the general population
• This study used the DESIR cohort, a multicenter cohort of patients with recent-onset axSpA in France, including 631 individuals aged 18-50 years who did not have hypertension at baseline and had 6 years of follow-up.
• NSAID use was evaluated at each follow-up visit, using the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society NSAID index.
• A score ≥ 50 was categorized as high use, and a score < 50 was considered low use.
• The primary outcome was hypertension, defined by the use of antihypertensive medication, self-reported hypertension, and/or systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mm Hg on at least two visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 39% of patients were categorized as high NSAID users.
• Over 6 years of follow-up, 70 patients (11%) developed hypertension.
• There was no significant association between high NSAID use and the risk for hypertension.

IN PRACTICE:

The study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

The research was led and presented by Jose Meade-Aguilar, MD, of Boston University School of Medicine, at the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) 2024 annual meeting in Cleveland.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a low number of hypertension events, which could be due to the younger age of participants and earlier disease stage. The study was observational, so residual or unmeasured confounding is possible.

DISCLOSURES:

The DESIR cohort study is financially supported by unrestricted grants from both the French Society for Rheumatology and Pfizer France. One coauthor reported receiving research grants and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Sanofi. Another coauthor reported receiving research grants from UCB and consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. The remaining authors had no financial, relational, or commercial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In regard to treatment, bimekizumab is a new monoclonal antibody that dually targets interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F and is highly efficacious for the treatment of psoriasis. In a meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials that included 1323 patients with PsA (age 18 years or older), of whom 853 received bimekizumab, Su and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab led to a significantly higher response rate for minimal disease activity (risk ratio [RR] 4.188; P < .001) and a 70% or greater improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (RR 7.932; P < .0001) when compared with placebo. Bimekizumab was superior to placebo in achieving ACR20/50/70 response at a dose of 160 mg. The risk for treatment-emergent adverse events was modestly higher with bimekizumab vs placebo (RR 1.423; P = .023), whereas the risk for serious cancers, upper respiratory tract infection, injection site reactions, and pharyngitis was similar for both. Thus, bimekizumab is an efficacious agent for the treatment of PsA. Future head-to-head studies will help clinicians determine the role of this drug in the management of PsA.

Not all patients respond equally well to targeted therapies, and the so-called challenging-to-treat patients are being increasingly described. Kivitz and colleagues recently described the efficacy of secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-17A, in these challenging-to-treat patients from the United States. In a post hoc subgroup analysis of four phase 3 studies that included 279 patients, they demonstrated that patients receiving 300 mg secukinumab and 150 mg  with a loading dose had a higher rate of achieving the ACR20 response (59.7% and 43.4%, respectively) vs 15.6% for placebo (both P < .0001). The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 response was 47.1% and 22.2%, respectively, vs 5.3% (both P < .05). Thus, secukinumab is efficacious in more challenging-to-treat patients. However, such patients need to be better characterized so that effective treatment strategies to achieve a state of low disease activity may be implemented.

In regard to treatment, bimekizumab is a new monoclonal antibody that dually targets interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F and is highly efficacious for the treatment of psoriasis. In a meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials that included 1323 patients with PsA (age 18 years or older), of whom 853 received bimekizumab, Su and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab led to a significantly higher response rate for minimal disease activity (risk ratio [RR] 4.188; P < .001) and a 70% or greater improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (RR 7.932; P < .0001) when compared with placebo. Bimekizumab was superior to placebo in achieving ACR20/50/70 response at a dose of 160 mg. The risk for treatment-emergent adverse events was modestly higher with bimekizumab vs placebo (RR 1.423; P = .023), whereas the risk for serious cancers, upper respiratory tract infection, injection site reactions, and pharyngitis was similar for both. Thus, bimekizumab is an efficacious agent for the treatment of PsA. Future head-to-head studies will help clinicians determine the role of this drug in the management of PsA.

Not all patients respond equally well to targeted therapies, and the so-called challenging-to-treat patients are being increasingly described. Kivitz and colleagues recently described the efficacy of secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-17A, in these challenging-to-treat patients from the United States. In a post hoc subgroup analysis of four phase 3 studies that included 279 patients, they demonstrated that patients receiving 300 mg secukinumab and 150 mg  with a loading dose had a higher rate of achieving the ACR20 response (59.7% and 43.4%, respectively) vs 15.6% for placebo (both P < .0001). The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 response was 47.1% and 22.2%, respectively, vs 5.3% (both P < .05). Thus, secukinumab is efficacious in more challenging-to-treat patients. However, such patients need to be better characterized so that effective treatment strategies to achieve a state of low disease activity may be implemented.

In regard to treatment, bimekizumab is a new monoclonal antibody that dually targets interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F and is highly efficacious for the treatment of psoriasis. In a meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials that included 1323 patients with PsA (age 18 years or older), of whom 853 received bimekizumab, Su and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab led to a significantly higher response rate for minimal disease activity (risk ratio [RR] 4.188; P < .001) and a 70% or greater improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (RR 7.932; P < .0001) when compared with placebo. Bimekizumab was superior to placebo in achieving ACR20/50/70 response at a dose of 160 mg. The risk for treatment-emergent adverse events was modestly higher with bimekizumab vs placebo (RR 1.423; P = .023), whereas the risk for serious cancers, upper respiratory tract infection, injection site reactions, and pharyngitis was similar for both. Thus, bimekizumab is an efficacious agent for the treatment of PsA. Future head-to-head studies will help clinicians determine the role of this drug in the management of PsA.

Not all patients respond equally well to targeted therapies, and the so-called challenging-to-treat patients are being increasingly described. Kivitz and colleagues recently described the efficacy of secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-17A, in these challenging-to-treat patients from the United States. In a post hoc subgroup analysis of four phase 3 studies that included 279 patients, they demonstrated that patients receiving 300 mg secukinumab and 150 mg  with a loading dose had a higher rate of achieving the ACR20 response (59.7% and 43.4%, respectively) vs 15.6% for placebo (both P < .0001). The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 response was 47.1% and 22.2%, respectively, vs 5.3% (both P < .05). Thus, secukinumab is efficacious in more challenging-to-treat patients. However, such patients need to be better characterized so that effective treatment strategies to achieve a state of low disease activity may be implemented.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.