MDedge Rheumatology

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adding arthroscopic surgery to nonoperative management neither delays nor accelerates the timing of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODOLOGY:

• Some case series show that arthroscopic surgery for knee OA may delay more invasive procedures, such as TKA or osteotomy, while longitudinal cohort studies often contradict this. Current OA guidelines are yet to address this issue.
• This secondary analysis of a randomized trial compared the long-term incidence of TKA in 178 patients (mean age, 59 years; 64.3% women) with knee OA who were referred for potential arthroscopic surgery at a tertiary care center in Canada.
• The patients received nonoperative care with or without additional arthroscopic surgery.
• Patients in the arthroscopic surgery group had specific knee procedures (resection of degenerative knee tissues) along with nonoperative management (physical therapy plus medications as required), while the control group received nonoperative management alone.
• The primary outcome was TKA on the knee being studied, and the secondary outcome was TKA or osteotomy on either knee.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 13.8 years, 37.6% of patients underwent TKA, with comparable proportions of patients in the arthroscopic surgery and control groups undergoing TKA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.52-1.40).
• The rates of TKA or osteotomy on either knee were similar in both groups (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.59-1.41).
• A time-stratified analysis done for 0-5 years, 5-10 years, and beyond 10 years of follow-up also showed a consistent interpretation.
• When patients with crossover to arthroscopic surgery during the follow-up were included, the results remained similar for both the primary (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.53-1.44) and secondary (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.69-1.68) outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study findings do not support the use of arthroscopic surgery for OA of the knee.” “Arthroscopic surgery does not provide additional benefit to nonoperative management for improving pain, stiffness, and function and is likely not cost-effective at 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Trevor B. Birmingham, PhD, Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. It was published online in JAMA Network Open

LIMITATIONS:

The study was designed to assess differences in 2-year patient-reported outcomes rather than long-term TKA incidence. Factors influencing decisions to undergo TKA or osteotomy were not considered. Moreover, the effects observed in this study should be evaluated considering the estimated confidence intervals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Some authors declared consulting, performing contracted services, or receiving grant funding, royalties, and nonfinancial support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adding arthroscopic surgery to nonoperative management neither delays nor accelerates the timing of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODOLOGY:

• Some case series show that arthroscopic surgery for knee OA may delay more invasive procedures, such as TKA or osteotomy, while longitudinal cohort studies often contradict this. Current OA guidelines are yet to address this issue.
• This secondary analysis of a randomized trial compared the long-term incidence of TKA in 178 patients (mean age, 59 years; 64.3% women) with knee OA who were referred for potential arthroscopic surgery at a tertiary care center in Canada.
• The patients received nonoperative care with or without additional arthroscopic surgery.
• Patients in the arthroscopic surgery group had specific knee procedures (resection of degenerative knee tissues) along with nonoperative management (physical therapy plus medications as required), while the control group received nonoperative management alone.
• The primary outcome was TKA on the knee being studied, and the secondary outcome was TKA or osteotomy on either knee.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 13.8 years, 37.6% of patients underwent TKA, with comparable proportions of patients in the arthroscopic surgery and control groups undergoing TKA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.52-1.40).
• The rates of TKA or osteotomy on either knee were similar in both groups (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.59-1.41).
• A time-stratified analysis done for 0-5 years, 5-10 years, and beyond 10 years of follow-up also showed a consistent interpretation.
• When patients with crossover to arthroscopic surgery during the follow-up were included, the results remained similar for both the primary (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.53-1.44) and secondary (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.69-1.68) outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study findings do not support the use of arthroscopic surgery for OA of the knee.” “Arthroscopic surgery does not provide additional benefit to nonoperative management for improving pain, stiffness, and function and is likely not cost-effective at 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Trevor B. Birmingham, PhD, Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. It was published online in JAMA Network Open

LIMITATIONS:

The study was designed to assess differences in 2-year patient-reported outcomes rather than long-term TKA incidence. Factors influencing decisions to undergo TKA or osteotomy were not considered. Moreover, the effects observed in this study should be evaluated considering the estimated confidence intervals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Some authors declared consulting, performing contracted services, or receiving grant funding, royalties, and nonfinancial support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adding arthroscopic surgery to nonoperative management neither delays nor accelerates the timing of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODOLOGY:

• Some case series show that arthroscopic surgery for knee OA may delay more invasive procedures, such as TKA or osteotomy, while longitudinal cohort studies often contradict this. Current OA guidelines are yet to address this issue.
• This secondary analysis of a randomized trial compared the long-term incidence of TKA in 178 patients (mean age, 59 years; 64.3% women) with knee OA who were referred for potential arthroscopic surgery at a tertiary care center in Canada.
• The patients received nonoperative care with or without additional arthroscopic surgery.
• Patients in the arthroscopic surgery group had specific knee procedures (resection of degenerative knee tissues) along with nonoperative management (physical therapy plus medications as required), while the control group received nonoperative management alone.
• The primary outcome was TKA on the knee being studied, and the secondary outcome was TKA or osteotomy on either knee.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 13.8 years, 37.6% of patients underwent TKA, with comparable proportions of patients in the arthroscopic surgery and control groups undergoing TKA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.52-1.40).
• The rates of TKA or osteotomy on either knee were similar in both groups (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.59-1.41).
• A time-stratified analysis done for 0-5 years, 5-10 years, and beyond 10 years of follow-up also showed a consistent interpretation.
• When patients with crossover to arthroscopic surgery during the follow-up were included, the results remained similar for both the primary (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.53-1.44) and secondary (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.69-1.68) outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study findings do not support the use of arthroscopic surgery for OA of the knee.” “Arthroscopic surgery does not provide additional benefit to nonoperative management for improving pain, stiffness, and function and is likely not cost-effective at 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Trevor B. Birmingham, PhD, Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. It was published online in JAMA Network Open

LIMITATIONS:

The study was designed to assess differences in 2-year patient-reported outcomes rather than long-term TKA incidence. Factors influencing decisions to undergo TKA or osteotomy were not considered. Moreover, the effects observed in this study should be evaluated considering the estimated confidence intervals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Some authors declared consulting, performing contracted services, or receiving grant funding, royalties, and nonfinancial support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Urate, the culprit of gout, affects the vasculature in multiple ways that can raise cardiovascular risk (CV) in an individual with gout, and following guidelines for gout treatment, including the use of colchicine, can be the key to reducing those risks.

“Guideline-concordant gout treatment, which is essentially an anti-inflammatory urate-lowering strategy, at least improves arterial physiology and likely reduces cardiovascular risk,” Michael H. Pillinger, MD, told attendees at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference. Dr. Pillinger is professor of medicine and biochemistry and molecular pharmacology at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, who has published multiple studies on gout.

NYU Grossman School of Medicine

He cited evidence that has shown soluble urate stimulates the production of C-reactive protein (CRP), which is a predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Another study, in which Dr. Pillinger participated, demonstrated that gout patients have impaired vascular endothelial function associated with a chronic, low-level inflammatory state, he said.

“There’s good evidence that urate itself affects the vasculature in multiple ways, and I suspect this may be a model for other metabolic effects on vasculature,” Dr. Pillinger said. “Patients with gout have abnormal endothelium in ways that really convey vascular risk.”
 

Gout, Inflammation, and CVD

However, for rheumatologists to study the association between gout-related inflammation and CVD is “very, very hard,” Dr. Pillinger added. “But I do think that the mechanisms by which gout induces biological changes in the vasculature may provide insights into cardiovascular disease in general.”

One way to evaluate the effects of gout on the endothelium in the clinic is to measure flow-mediated dilation. This technique involves placing an ultrasound probe over the brachial artery and measuring the baseline artery diameter. Then, with the blood pressure cuff over the forearm, inflate it to reduce flow, then release the cuff and measure the brachial artery diameter after the endothelium releases vasodilators.

Dr. Pillinger and colleagues evaluated this technique in 34 patients with gout and 64 controls and found that patients with gout had an almost 50% decrease in flow-mediated dilation, he said. “Interestingly, the higher the urate, the worse the flow; the more the inflammation, the worse the flow, so seemingly corresponding with the severity of the gout,” he said. That raised an obvious question, Dr. Pillinger continued: “If you can treat the gout, can you improve the flow-mediated dilation?”

His group answered that question with a study in 38 previously untreated patients with gout, giving them colchicine 0.6 mg twice daily for a month plus a urate-lowering xanthine oxidase inhibitor (allopurinol or febuxostat) to treat them to a target urate level of < 6 mg/dL. “We saw an increase in endothelial function, and it normalized,” Dr. Pillinger said.

However, some study participants didn’t respond. “They were people with well-established other cardiovascular comorbidities — hypertension, hyperlipidemia,” he said. “I think some people just have vessels that are too damaged to get at them just by fixing their gout problem or their inflammation.”

That means patients with gout need to be treated with colchicine early on to avoid CV problems, Dr. Pillinger added. “We ought to get to them before they have the other problems,” he said.

Managing gout, and the concomitant CV problems, requires vigilance both during and in between flares, Dr. Pillinger said after his presentation.

“We have always taught that patients between flares basically look like people with no gout, but we do know now that patients with gout between flares tend to have what you might call ‘subclinical’ inflammation: CRPs and ESRs [erythrocyte sedimentation rates] that are higher than those of the general population, though not so excessive that they might grab attention,” he said. “We also know that many, if not all, patients between flares have urate deposited in or around their joints, but how these two relate is not fully established.”

Better treatment within 3 months of an acute gout flare may reduce the risk for CV events, he said, but that’s based on speculation more so than clinical data.
 

Potential Benefits of Targeting Inflammation

“More chronically, we know from the cardiologists’ studies that anti-inflammatory therapy should reduce risk in the high-risk general population,” Dr. Pillinger said. “There are no prospective studies confirming that this approach will work among gout patients, but there is no reason why it shouldn’t work — except perhaps that gout patients may have higher inflammation than the general population and also have more comorbidities, so they could perhaps be more resistant.”

Dr. Pillinger said that his group’s studies and another led by Daniel Solomon, MD, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, have indicated that anti-inflammatory strategies in gout will lower CV risk.

“And interestingly,” he added, “our data suggest that colchicine use may lower risk not only in high-risk gout patients but also in gout patients who start with no CAD [coronary artery disease] but who seem to have less incident CAD on colchicine. I see this as identifying that gout patients are intrinsically at high risk for CAD, even if they don’t actually have any, so they represent a population for whom lowering chronic inflammation may help prevent incident disease.”

Dr. Pillinger provided more evidence that the understanding of the relationship between gout, gout flares, and CV risk is evolving, said Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the Cardio-Rheumatology Program at NYU Langone, New York City.

NYU Langone

“There’s epidemiologic evidence supporting the association,” Dr. Garshick told this news organization after the conference. “We think that most conditions with immune system activation do tend to have an increased risk of some form of cardiovascular disease, but I think the relationship with gout has been highly underpublicized.”

Many patients with gout tend to have a higher prevalence of traditional cardiometabolic issues, which may compound the relationship, Dr. Garshick added. “However, I would argue that with this patient subset that it doesn’t matter because gout patients have a higher risk of traditional risk factors, and you have to [treat-to-target] those traditional risk factors.”

While the clinical evidence of a link between gout and atherosclerosis may not be conclusive, enough circumstantial evidence exists to believe that treating gout will reduce CV risks, he said. “Some of the imaging techniques do suggest that gouty crystals [are] in the atherosclerotic plaque of gout patients,” Dr. Garshick added. Dr. Pillinger’s work, he said, “is showing us that there are different pathways to develop atherosclerosis.”

Dr. Pillinger disclosed relationships with Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, Amgen, Scilex, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LG Chem, and Olatec Therapeutics. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Urate, the culprit of gout, affects the vasculature in multiple ways that can raise cardiovascular risk (CV) in an individual with gout, and following guidelines for gout treatment, including the use of colchicine, can be the key to reducing those risks.

“Guideline-concordant gout treatment, which is essentially an anti-inflammatory urate-lowering strategy, at least improves arterial physiology and likely reduces cardiovascular risk,” Michael H. Pillinger, MD, told attendees at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference. Dr. Pillinger is professor of medicine and biochemistry and molecular pharmacology at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, who has published multiple studies on gout.

NYU Grossman School of Medicine

He cited evidence that has shown soluble urate stimulates the production of C-reactive protein (CRP), which is a predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Another study, in which Dr. Pillinger participated, demonstrated that gout patients have impaired vascular endothelial function associated with a chronic, low-level inflammatory state, he said.

“There’s good evidence that urate itself affects the vasculature in multiple ways, and I suspect this may be a model for other metabolic effects on vasculature,” Dr. Pillinger said. “Patients with gout have abnormal endothelium in ways that really convey vascular risk.”
 

Gout, Inflammation, and CVD

However, for rheumatologists to study the association between gout-related inflammation and CVD is “very, very hard,” Dr. Pillinger added. “But I do think that the mechanisms by which gout induces biological changes in the vasculature may provide insights into cardiovascular disease in general.”

One way to evaluate the effects of gout on the endothelium in the clinic is to measure flow-mediated dilation. This technique involves placing an ultrasound probe over the brachial artery and measuring the baseline artery diameter. Then, with the blood pressure cuff over the forearm, inflate it to reduce flow, then release the cuff and measure the brachial artery diameter after the endothelium releases vasodilators.

Dr. Pillinger and colleagues evaluated this technique in 34 patients with gout and 64 controls and found that patients with gout had an almost 50% decrease in flow-mediated dilation, he said. “Interestingly, the higher the urate, the worse the flow; the more the inflammation, the worse the flow, so seemingly corresponding with the severity of the gout,” he said. That raised an obvious question, Dr. Pillinger continued: “If you can treat the gout, can you improve the flow-mediated dilation?”

His group answered that question with a study in 38 previously untreated patients with gout, giving them colchicine 0.6 mg twice daily for a month plus a urate-lowering xanthine oxidase inhibitor (allopurinol or febuxostat) to treat them to a target urate level of < 6 mg/dL. “We saw an increase in endothelial function, and it normalized,” Dr. Pillinger said.

However, some study participants didn’t respond. “They were people with well-established other cardiovascular comorbidities — hypertension, hyperlipidemia,” he said. “I think some people just have vessels that are too damaged to get at them just by fixing their gout problem or their inflammation.”

That means patients with gout need to be treated with colchicine early on to avoid CV problems, Dr. Pillinger added. “We ought to get to them before they have the other problems,” he said.

Managing gout, and the concomitant CV problems, requires vigilance both during and in between flares, Dr. Pillinger said after his presentation.

“We have always taught that patients between flares basically look like people with no gout, but we do know now that patients with gout between flares tend to have what you might call ‘subclinical’ inflammation: CRPs and ESRs [erythrocyte sedimentation rates] that are higher than those of the general population, though not so excessive that they might grab attention,” he said. “We also know that many, if not all, patients between flares have urate deposited in or around their joints, but how these two relate is not fully established.”

Better treatment within 3 months of an acute gout flare may reduce the risk for CV events, he said, but that’s based on speculation more so than clinical data.
 

Potential Benefits of Targeting Inflammation

“More chronically, we know from the cardiologists’ studies that anti-inflammatory therapy should reduce risk in the high-risk general population,” Dr. Pillinger said. “There are no prospective studies confirming that this approach will work among gout patients, but there is no reason why it shouldn’t work — except perhaps that gout patients may have higher inflammation than the general population and also have more comorbidities, so they could perhaps be more resistant.”

Dr. Pillinger said that his group’s studies and another led by Daniel Solomon, MD, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, have indicated that anti-inflammatory strategies in gout will lower CV risk.

“And interestingly,” he added, “our data suggest that colchicine use may lower risk not only in high-risk gout patients but also in gout patients who start with no CAD [coronary artery disease] but who seem to have less incident CAD on colchicine. I see this as identifying that gout patients are intrinsically at high risk for CAD, even if they don’t actually have any, so they represent a population for whom lowering chronic inflammation may help prevent incident disease.”

Dr. Pillinger provided more evidence that the understanding of the relationship between gout, gout flares, and CV risk is evolving, said Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the Cardio-Rheumatology Program at NYU Langone, New York City.

NYU Langone

“There’s epidemiologic evidence supporting the association,” Dr. Garshick told this news organization after the conference. “We think that most conditions with immune system activation do tend to have an increased risk of some form of cardiovascular disease, but I think the relationship with gout has been highly underpublicized.”

Many patients with gout tend to have a higher prevalence of traditional cardiometabolic issues, which may compound the relationship, Dr. Garshick added. “However, I would argue that with this patient subset that it doesn’t matter because gout patients have a higher risk of traditional risk factors, and you have to [treat-to-target] those traditional risk factors.”

While the clinical evidence of a link between gout and atherosclerosis may not be conclusive, enough circumstantial evidence exists to believe that treating gout will reduce CV risks, he said. “Some of the imaging techniques do suggest that gouty crystals [are] in the atherosclerotic plaque of gout patients,” Dr. Garshick added. Dr. Pillinger’s work, he said, “is showing us that there are different pathways to develop atherosclerosis.”

Dr. Pillinger disclosed relationships with Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, Amgen, Scilex, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LG Chem, and Olatec Therapeutics. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Urate, the culprit of gout, affects the vasculature in multiple ways that can raise cardiovascular risk (CV) in an individual with gout, and following guidelines for gout treatment, including the use of colchicine, can be the key to reducing those risks.

“Guideline-concordant gout treatment, which is essentially an anti-inflammatory urate-lowering strategy, at least improves arterial physiology and likely reduces cardiovascular risk,” Michael H. Pillinger, MD, told attendees at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference. Dr. Pillinger is professor of medicine and biochemistry and molecular pharmacology at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, who has published multiple studies on gout.

NYU Grossman School of Medicine

He cited evidence that has shown soluble urate stimulates the production of C-reactive protein (CRP), which is a predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Another study, in which Dr. Pillinger participated, demonstrated that gout patients have impaired vascular endothelial function associated with a chronic, low-level inflammatory state, he said.

“There’s good evidence that urate itself affects the vasculature in multiple ways, and I suspect this may be a model for other metabolic effects on vasculature,” Dr. Pillinger said. “Patients with gout have abnormal endothelium in ways that really convey vascular risk.”
 

Gout, Inflammation, and CVD

However, for rheumatologists to study the association between gout-related inflammation and CVD is “very, very hard,” Dr. Pillinger added. “But I do think that the mechanisms by which gout induces biological changes in the vasculature may provide insights into cardiovascular disease in general.”

One way to evaluate the effects of gout on the endothelium in the clinic is to measure flow-mediated dilation. This technique involves placing an ultrasound probe over the brachial artery and measuring the baseline artery diameter. Then, with the blood pressure cuff over the forearm, inflate it to reduce flow, then release the cuff and measure the brachial artery diameter after the endothelium releases vasodilators.

Dr. Pillinger and colleagues evaluated this technique in 34 patients with gout and 64 controls and found that patients with gout had an almost 50% decrease in flow-mediated dilation, he said. “Interestingly, the higher the urate, the worse the flow; the more the inflammation, the worse the flow, so seemingly corresponding with the severity of the gout,” he said. That raised an obvious question, Dr. Pillinger continued: “If you can treat the gout, can you improve the flow-mediated dilation?”

His group answered that question with a study in 38 previously untreated patients with gout, giving them colchicine 0.6 mg twice daily for a month plus a urate-lowering xanthine oxidase inhibitor (allopurinol or febuxostat) to treat them to a target urate level of < 6 mg/dL. “We saw an increase in endothelial function, and it normalized,” Dr. Pillinger said.

However, some study participants didn’t respond. “They were people with well-established other cardiovascular comorbidities — hypertension, hyperlipidemia,” he said. “I think some people just have vessels that are too damaged to get at them just by fixing their gout problem or their inflammation.”

That means patients with gout need to be treated with colchicine early on to avoid CV problems, Dr. Pillinger added. “We ought to get to them before they have the other problems,” he said.

Managing gout, and the concomitant CV problems, requires vigilance both during and in between flares, Dr. Pillinger said after his presentation.

“We have always taught that patients between flares basically look like people with no gout, but we do know now that patients with gout between flares tend to have what you might call ‘subclinical’ inflammation: CRPs and ESRs [erythrocyte sedimentation rates] that are higher than those of the general population, though not so excessive that they might grab attention,” he said. “We also know that many, if not all, patients between flares have urate deposited in or around their joints, but how these two relate is not fully established.”

Better treatment within 3 months of an acute gout flare may reduce the risk for CV events, he said, but that’s based on speculation more so than clinical data.
 

Potential Benefits of Targeting Inflammation

“More chronically, we know from the cardiologists’ studies that anti-inflammatory therapy should reduce risk in the high-risk general population,” Dr. Pillinger said. “There are no prospective studies confirming that this approach will work among gout patients, but there is no reason why it shouldn’t work — except perhaps that gout patients may have higher inflammation than the general population and also have more comorbidities, so they could perhaps be more resistant.”

Dr. Pillinger said that his group’s studies and another led by Daniel Solomon, MD, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, have indicated that anti-inflammatory strategies in gout will lower CV risk.

“And interestingly,” he added, “our data suggest that colchicine use may lower risk not only in high-risk gout patients but also in gout patients who start with no CAD [coronary artery disease] but who seem to have less incident CAD on colchicine. I see this as identifying that gout patients are intrinsically at high risk for CAD, even if they don’t actually have any, so they represent a population for whom lowering chronic inflammation may help prevent incident disease.”

Dr. Pillinger provided more evidence that the understanding of the relationship between gout, gout flares, and CV risk is evolving, said Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the Cardio-Rheumatology Program at NYU Langone, New York City.

NYU Langone

“There’s epidemiologic evidence supporting the association,” Dr. Garshick told this news organization after the conference. “We think that most conditions with immune system activation do tend to have an increased risk of some form of cardiovascular disease, but I think the relationship with gout has been highly underpublicized.”

Many patients with gout tend to have a higher prevalence of traditional cardiometabolic issues, which may compound the relationship, Dr. Garshick added. “However, I would argue that with this patient subset that it doesn’t matter because gout patients have a higher risk of traditional risk factors, and you have to [treat-to-target] those traditional risk factors.”

While the clinical evidence of a link between gout and atherosclerosis may not be conclusive, enough circumstantial evidence exists to believe that treating gout will reduce CV risks, he said. “Some of the imaging techniques do suggest that gouty crystals [are] in the atherosclerotic plaque of gout patients,” Dr. Garshick added. Dr. Pillinger’s work, he said, “is showing us that there are different pathways to develop atherosclerosis.”

Dr. Pillinger disclosed relationships with Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, Amgen, Scilex, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LG Chem, and Olatec Therapeutics. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) carry a high risk for cardiovascular events, but mounting clinical evidence suggests they’re being undertreated to manage that risk. Rheumatologists should consider a patient with RA’s cardiovascular disease (CVD) status before deciding on RA treatments, a researcher of cardiometabolic disorders advised.

“The ORAL Surveillance trial suggests that we need to consider cardiovascular risk factors and maybe do additional screening in these patients before we use RA therapies,” Jon T. Giles, MD, PhD, director of the Cedars-Sinai Inflammatory Arthritis Clinical Center at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, told attendees at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference.
 

Underuse of Statins

ORAL Surveillance enrolled 4362 patients with RA aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. About 23% of all patients were taking statins, as were about half of patients with a history of atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD).

“A lot of those people should have been on statins,” Dr. Giles said in an interview. “Not because of their RA but because of their risk factors, and then RA brings it up another notch.” In the population with ASCVD, Dr. Giles added, “It should have been more like 70% and 80%. If we’re talking about a disease that has enhanced cardiovascular risk, then the adoption of standard care that you would do for anybody in the general population should be at that standard and maybe above.”

Multiple studies have documented the underlying risk for CVD events, CV mortality, and subclinical atherosclerosis in people with RA, Dr. Giles noted in his presentation. Physiologically, the RA-specific risk factors most linked to CVD risk are systemic inflammation/cytokine excess and specific circulating T-cell and intermediate monocyte subsets, or both, Dr. Giles said.
 

Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) and CVD Risk

Likewise, research in the past decade has linked methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors to reduced ASCVD events in RA. Another study showed that abatacept had an effect similar to that of etanercept in patients with RA, and the ENTRACTE trial, for which Dr. Giles was the lead author, demonstrated that tocilizumab matched etanercept in reducing CV events.

The ORAL Surveillance investigators also reported that patients with RA who were receiving the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib had a higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and cancers than those on TNF therapy, Dr. Giles noted. While statins in combination with JAK inhibitors may have the potential to provide a balance for controlling CV risk in patients with RA, he said later that the potential of JAK inhibitors in reducing CVD risk in RA “is still unsettled.”

The ongoing TARGET trial is further evaluating the impact of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA, said Dr. Giles, who’s also a trial principal investigator. TARGET is randomizing 115 patients with RA who didn’t respond to methotrexate to a TNF inhibitor or the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine to their methotrexate. Patients can be on low-intensity but not high-intensity statin therapy, Dr. Giles said.

TARGET results reported last year demonstrated an 8% decrease in arterial fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake on PET-CT in both treatment arms. Previous studies, Dr. Giles noted, have shown a potential link between FDG and histologic markers of inflammation. “An 8% decrease in vascular FDG is in line with what you would expect from statin treatment,” he said.

TARGET results published in April showed that a measure of a cluster of 12 cytokines and other inflammatory mediators, known as the multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) score and marketed under the brand name Vectra DA, may help determine arterial FDG uptake. “Those who had a low MBDA score at week 24 actually had the greatest reduction in the arterial FDG,” he said.

Those results were driven entirely by low serum amyloid A (SAA) levels, Dr. Giles said. Those same results didn’t hold for patients in whom SAA and C-reactive protein were correlated.

“So, there’s more to come here,” Dr. Giles said. “We’re looking at other, much larger biomarker panels.”

Nonetheless, he said, sufficient evidence exists to conclude that treating RA to target reduces CV events. “The idea is that at every visit that you see an RA patient, you measure their disease activity, and if they’re not at the target of low disease activity or remission, then you change their therapy to improve that,” he said in an interview.

But an evidence-based guideline is needed to improve coverage of CVD risks in patients with RA, Dr. Giles said. “There is a movement afoot” for a guideline, he said. “If you just did what is supposed to happen for a general population, you would make some improvements. The risk-benefit [ratio] for statins for people with RA has been looked at, and it’s very favorable.”
 

Unanswered Questions

Dr. Giles noted that the ORAL Surveillance trial has left a number of questions unanswered about the role of JAK inhibitors in managing CVD risk in patients with RA. “The issue that we’re trying to ask is, is it just the TNF inhibitors may be better? Is this a subpopulation issue, or was it just bad luck from the purposes of this one trial? Granted, it was a very large trial, but you can still have luck in terms of getting an effect that’s not accurate.”

Dr. Giles’ “gut feeling” on JAK inhibitors is that they’re not causing harm, but that they’re not as effective as TNF inhibitors in ameliorating CV risks in patients with RA.

Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the cardio-rheumatology program at NYU Langone Health, concurred that a number of unanswered questions persist over the treatment of CVD risk in RA — and autoimmune disease in general.

NYU Langone

“I think we’re still trying to prove that DMARDs reduce cardiovascular risk in autoimmune conditions,” he said. “The epidemiologic data would suggest, yes, that inflammation prevention is beneficial for cardiovascular disease, but the TARGET trial suggested that vascular inflammation improved by treating RA, but that biologic therapy wasn’t better than traditional triple therapy.”

Other questions remain unanswered, Dr. Garshick said.

“Is there a specific immunotherapy that is most beneficial to reduce heart disease in patients with an autoimmune condition, whether it’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, or lupus?”

Dr. Garshick said he’s specifically interested in the residual risk that exists after treating the autoimmunity. “Do you still have a higher risk for heart disease, and if so, why? Is there something else going on that we can’t see?”

The biggest unanswered question, he said, is “How can we do a better job of recognizing heart disease risk in these patients? That’s the low-hanging fruit that people are studying, but across many of those studies, patients have higher rates of blood pressure, cholesterol issues, obesity, diabetes, and many times, we’re not adequately treating these comorbidities.”

That, Dr. Garshick said, may be a result of physician fatigue. “And so [treatment of these comorbidities is] kicked down the road for a year or years,” he added.

Dr. Giles disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) carry a high risk for cardiovascular events, but mounting clinical evidence suggests they’re being undertreated to manage that risk. Rheumatologists should consider a patient with RA’s cardiovascular disease (CVD) status before deciding on RA treatments, a researcher of cardiometabolic disorders advised.

“The ORAL Surveillance trial suggests that we need to consider cardiovascular risk factors and maybe do additional screening in these patients before we use RA therapies,” Jon T. Giles, MD, PhD, director of the Cedars-Sinai Inflammatory Arthritis Clinical Center at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, told attendees at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference.
 

Underuse of Statins

ORAL Surveillance enrolled 4362 patients with RA aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. About 23% of all patients were taking statins, as were about half of patients with a history of atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD).

“A lot of those people should have been on statins,” Dr. Giles said in an interview. “Not because of their RA but because of their risk factors, and then RA brings it up another notch.” In the population with ASCVD, Dr. Giles added, “It should have been more like 70% and 80%. If we’re talking about a disease that has enhanced cardiovascular risk, then the adoption of standard care that you would do for anybody in the general population should be at that standard and maybe above.”

Multiple studies have documented the underlying risk for CVD events, CV mortality, and subclinical atherosclerosis in people with RA, Dr. Giles noted in his presentation. Physiologically, the RA-specific risk factors most linked to CVD risk are systemic inflammation/cytokine excess and specific circulating T-cell and intermediate monocyte subsets, or both, Dr. Giles said.
 

Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) and CVD Risk

Likewise, research in the past decade has linked methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors to reduced ASCVD events in RA. Another study showed that abatacept had an effect similar to that of etanercept in patients with RA, and the ENTRACTE trial, for which Dr. Giles was the lead author, demonstrated that tocilizumab matched etanercept in reducing CV events.

The ORAL Surveillance investigators also reported that patients with RA who were receiving the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib had a higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and cancers than those on TNF therapy, Dr. Giles noted. While statins in combination with JAK inhibitors may have the potential to provide a balance for controlling CV risk in patients with RA, he said later that the potential of JAK inhibitors in reducing CVD risk in RA “is still unsettled.”

The ongoing TARGET trial is further evaluating the impact of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA, said Dr. Giles, who’s also a trial principal investigator. TARGET is randomizing 115 patients with RA who didn’t respond to methotrexate to a TNF inhibitor or the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine to their methotrexate. Patients can be on low-intensity but not high-intensity statin therapy, Dr. Giles said.

TARGET results reported last year demonstrated an 8% decrease in arterial fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake on PET-CT in both treatment arms. Previous studies, Dr. Giles noted, have shown a potential link between FDG and histologic markers of inflammation. “An 8% decrease in vascular FDG is in line with what you would expect from statin treatment,” he said.

TARGET results published in April showed that a measure of a cluster of 12 cytokines and other inflammatory mediators, known as the multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) score and marketed under the brand name Vectra DA, may help determine arterial FDG uptake. “Those who had a low MBDA score at week 24 actually had the greatest reduction in the arterial FDG,” he said.

Those results were driven entirely by low serum amyloid A (SAA) levels, Dr. Giles said. Those same results didn’t hold for patients in whom SAA and C-reactive protein were correlated.

“So, there’s more to come here,” Dr. Giles said. “We’re looking at other, much larger biomarker panels.”

Nonetheless, he said, sufficient evidence exists to conclude that treating RA to target reduces CV events. “The idea is that at every visit that you see an RA patient, you measure their disease activity, and if they’re not at the target of low disease activity or remission, then you change their therapy to improve that,” he said in an interview.

But an evidence-based guideline is needed to improve coverage of CVD risks in patients with RA, Dr. Giles said. “There is a movement afoot” for a guideline, he said. “If you just did what is supposed to happen for a general population, you would make some improvements. The risk-benefit [ratio] for statins for people with RA has been looked at, and it’s very favorable.”
 

Unanswered Questions

Dr. Giles noted that the ORAL Surveillance trial has left a number of questions unanswered about the role of JAK inhibitors in managing CVD risk in patients with RA. “The issue that we’re trying to ask is, is it just the TNF inhibitors may be better? Is this a subpopulation issue, or was it just bad luck from the purposes of this one trial? Granted, it was a very large trial, but you can still have luck in terms of getting an effect that’s not accurate.”

Dr. Giles’ “gut feeling” on JAK inhibitors is that they’re not causing harm, but that they’re not as effective as TNF inhibitors in ameliorating CV risks in patients with RA.

Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the cardio-rheumatology program at NYU Langone Health, concurred that a number of unanswered questions persist over the treatment of CVD risk in RA — and autoimmune disease in general.

NYU Langone

“I think we’re still trying to prove that DMARDs reduce cardiovascular risk in autoimmune conditions,” he said. “The epidemiologic data would suggest, yes, that inflammation prevention is beneficial for cardiovascular disease, but the TARGET trial suggested that vascular inflammation improved by treating RA, but that biologic therapy wasn’t better than traditional triple therapy.”

Other questions remain unanswered, Dr. Garshick said.

“Is there a specific immunotherapy that is most beneficial to reduce heart disease in patients with an autoimmune condition, whether it’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, or lupus?”

Dr. Garshick said he’s specifically interested in the residual risk that exists after treating the autoimmunity. “Do you still have a higher risk for heart disease, and if so, why? Is there something else going on that we can’t see?”

The biggest unanswered question, he said, is “How can we do a better job of recognizing heart disease risk in these patients? That’s the low-hanging fruit that people are studying, but across many of those studies, patients have higher rates of blood pressure, cholesterol issues, obesity, diabetes, and many times, we’re not adequately treating these comorbidities.”

That, Dr. Garshick said, may be a result of physician fatigue. “And so [treatment of these comorbidities is] kicked down the road for a year or years,” he added.

Dr. Giles disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) carry a high risk for cardiovascular events, but mounting clinical evidence suggests they’re being undertreated to manage that risk. Rheumatologists should consider a patient with RA’s cardiovascular disease (CVD) status before deciding on RA treatments, a researcher of cardiometabolic disorders advised.

“The ORAL Surveillance trial suggests that we need to consider cardiovascular risk factors and maybe do additional screening in these patients before we use RA therapies,” Jon T. Giles, MD, PhD, director of the Cedars-Sinai Inflammatory Arthritis Clinical Center at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, told attendees at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference.
 

Underuse of Statins

ORAL Surveillance enrolled 4362 patients with RA aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. About 23% of all patients were taking statins, as were about half of patients with a history of atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD).

“A lot of those people should have been on statins,” Dr. Giles said in an interview. “Not because of their RA but because of their risk factors, and then RA brings it up another notch.” In the population with ASCVD, Dr. Giles added, “It should have been more like 70% and 80%. If we’re talking about a disease that has enhanced cardiovascular risk, then the adoption of standard care that you would do for anybody in the general population should be at that standard and maybe above.”

Multiple studies have documented the underlying risk for CVD events, CV mortality, and subclinical atherosclerosis in people with RA, Dr. Giles noted in his presentation. Physiologically, the RA-specific risk factors most linked to CVD risk are systemic inflammation/cytokine excess and specific circulating T-cell and intermediate monocyte subsets, or both, Dr. Giles said.
 

Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) and CVD Risk

Likewise, research in the past decade has linked methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors to reduced ASCVD events in RA. Another study showed that abatacept had an effect similar to that of etanercept in patients with RA, and the ENTRACTE trial, for which Dr. Giles was the lead author, demonstrated that tocilizumab matched etanercept in reducing CV events.

The ORAL Surveillance investigators also reported that patients with RA who were receiving the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib had a higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and cancers than those on TNF therapy, Dr. Giles noted. While statins in combination with JAK inhibitors may have the potential to provide a balance for controlling CV risk in patients with RA, he said later that the potential of JAK inhibitors in reducing CVD risk in RA “is still unsettled.”

The ongoing TARGET trial is further evaluating the impact of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA, said Dr. Giles, who’s also a trial principal investigator. TARGET is randomizing 115 patients with RA who didn’t respond to methotrexate to a TNF inhibitor or the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine to their methotrexate. Patients can be on low-intensity but not high-intensity statin therapy, Dr. Giles said.

TARGET results reported last year demonstrated an 8% decrease in arterial fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake on PET-CT in both treatment arms. Previous studies, Dr. Giles noted, have shown a potential link between FDG and histologic markers of inflammation. “An 8% decrease in vascular FDG is in line with what you would expect from statin treatment,” he said.

TARGET results published in April showed that a measure of a cluster of 12 cytokines and other inflammatory mediators, known as the multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) score and marketed under the brand name Vectra DA, may help determine arterial FDG uptake. “Those who had a low MBDA score at week 24 actually had the greatest reduction in the arterial FDG,” he said.

Those results were driven entirely by low serum amyloid A (SAA) levels, Dr. Giles said. Those same results didn’t hold for patients in whom SAA and C-reactive protein were correlated.

“So, there’s more to come here,” Dr. Giles said. “We’re looking at other, much larger biomarker panels.”

Nonetheless, he said, sufficient evidence exists to conclude that treating RA to target reduces CV events. “The idea is that at every visit that you see an RA patient, you measure their disease activity, and if they’re not at the target of low disease activity or remission, then you change their therapy to improve that,” he said in an interview.

But an evidence-based guideline is needed to improve coverage of CVD risks in patients with RA, Dr. Giles said. “There is a movement afoot” for a guideline, he said. “If you just did what is supposed to happen for a general population, you would make some improvements. The risk-benefit [ratio] for statins for people with RA has been looked at, and it’s very favorable.”
 

Unanswered Questions

Dr. Giles noted that the ORAL Surveillance trial has left a number of questions unanswered about the role of JAK inhibitors in managing CVD risk in patients with RA. “The issue that we’re trying to ask is, is it just the TNF inhibitors may be better? Is this a subpopulation issue, or was it just bad luck from the purposes of this one trial? Granted, it was a very large trial, but you can still have luck in terms of getting an effect that’s not accurate.”

Dr. Giles’ “gut feeling” on JAK inhibitors is that they’re not causing harm, but that they’re not as effective as TNF inhibitors in ameliorating CV risks in patients with RA.

Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the cardio-rheumatology program at NYU Langone Health, concurred that a number of unanswered questions persist over the treatment of CVD risk in RA — and autoimmune disease in general.

NYU Langone

“I think we’re still trying to prove that DMARDs reduce cardiovascular risk in autoimmune conditions,” he said. “The epidemiologic data would suggest, yes, that inflammation prevention is beneficial for cardiovascular disease, but the TARGET trial suggested that vascular inflammation improved by treating RA, but that biologic therapy wasn’t better than traditional triple therapy.”

Other questions remain unanswered, Dr. Garshick said.

“Is there a specific immunotherapy that is most beneficial to reduce heart disease in patients with an autoimmune condition, whether it’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, or lupus?”

Dr. Garshick said he’s specifically interested in the residual risk that exists after treating the autoimmunity. “Do you still have a higher risk for heart disease, and if so, why? Is there something else going on that we can’t see?”

The biggest unanswered question, he said, is “How can we do a better job of recognizing heart disease risk in these patients? That’s the low-hanging fruit that people are studying, but across many of those studies, patients have higher rates of blood pressure, cholesterol issues, obesity, diabetes, and many times, we’re not adequately treating these comorbidities.”

That, Dr. Garshick said, may be a result of physician fatigue. “And so [treatment of these comorbidities is] kicked down the road for a year or years,” he added.

Dr. Giles disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

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

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

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

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

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

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

VIENNA — Nearly one third of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries appear to heal without surgery, according to an analysis of three-dimensional MRI data taken from the NACOX study, presented as a late-breaking poster at the OARSI 2024 World Congress. 

At 2 years after injury, three-dimensional MRI showed that 13 of 43 (30%) knees had evidence of normal, continuous ACL fibers. Moreover, a further 14 (33%) knees had a continuous ACL fiber structure following rehabilitation alone. ACL fibers were partly (16%) or completely (21%) ruptured in the remainder of cases.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“If you think of the ACL like a rope, when there is continuity, it means those fibers have rejoined,” study coauthor Stephanie Filbay, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne in Australia, told this news organization.

“Within that, there’s a few variations of healing that we’re seeing. Some look like they’ve never been injured, while some have rejoined but appear thinner or longer than a normal ACL,” Dr. Filbay said.

She added: “What all this research is showing is that it’s happening at a much higher rate than we thought possible. And in some of the studies, it looks like ACL healing is associated with very favorable outcomes.”

At OARSI 2024, Dr. Filbay presented additional data from her and others’ research on the relationships between ACL healing and long-term functional outcomes and osteoarthritis (OA) incidence in comparisons between patients’ treatment pathways: Early ACL surgery, rehabilitation followed by delayed surgery, or rehabilitation only.
 

Healing Without Surgery

The idea that the ACL can heal without surgery is relatively recent and perhaps still not widely accepted as a concept, as Dr. Filbay explained during a plenary lecture at the congress.

Dr. Filbay explained that the ideal management of ACL injury depends on the severity of knee injury and whether someone’s knee is stable after trying nonsurgical management. Results of the ACL SNNAP trial, for example, have suggested that surgical reconstruction is superior to a rehabilitation strategy for managing non-acute ACL injuries where there are persistent symptoms of instability.

However, there have been two trials — COMPARE performed in the Netherlands and KANON performed in Sweden — that found that early surgery was no better than a strategy of initial rehabilitation with the option of having a delayed ACL surgery if needed.
 

What Happens Long Term?

Posttraumatic OA is a well-known long-term consequence of ACL injury. According to a recent meta-analysis, there is a sevenfold increased risk for OA comparing people who have and have not had an ACL injury.

ACL injury also results in OA occurring at an earlier age than in people with OA who have not had an ACL injury. This has been shown to progress at a faster rate and be associated with a longer period of disability, Dr. Filbay said at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

But does the ACL really heal? Dr. Filbay thinks that it does and has been involved in several studies that have used MRI to look at how the ACL may do so.

In a recently published paper, Dr. Filbay and colleagues reported the findings from a secondary analysis of the KANON trial and found that nearly one in three (30%) of the participants who had been randomized to optional delayed surgery had MRI evidence of healing at 2 years. But when they excluded people who had delayed surgery, 53% of people managed by rehabilitation alone had evidence of healing.

The evaluation also found that those who had a healed vs non-healed ligament had better results using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and that there were better outcomes at 2 years among those with ACL healing vs those who had early or delayed ACL surgery.
 

ACL Continuity and Long-Term Outcomes

At OARSI 2024, Dr. Filbay and colleagues reported an even longer-term secondary analysis of the KANON trial on the relationship between ACL healing at 5 years and outcomes at 11 years. The results were first reported in NEJM Evidence.

Dr. Filbay reported that participants with ACL continuity on MRI at 5 years actually had worse patient-reported outcomes 11 years later than those who were managed with early or delayed ACL reconstruction.

“This does not align with previous findings suggesting better 2-year outcomes compared to the surgically managed groups,” Dr. Filbay said.

However, people with ACL continuity following rehabilitation did seem to show numerically similar or fewer signs of radiographic OA at 11 years vs the surgical groups.

Radiographic OA of the tibiofemoral joint (TFJ) or patellofemoral joint (PFJ) at 11 years was observed in a respective 14% and 21% of people with ACL continuity at 5 years (n = 14) and in 22% and 11% of people with ACL discontinuity at 5 years in the rehabilitation alone group.

By comparison, radiographic OA of the TFJ or PFJ at 11 years was seen in a respective 23% and 35% of people who had rehabilitation with delayed surgery (n = 26) and in 18% and 41% of those who had early surgery (n = 49).

These are descriptive results, Dr. Filbay said, because the numbers were too small to do a statistical analysis. Further, larger, longitudinal studies will be needed.
 

Posttraumatic OA After ACL Surgery

Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, Matthew Harkey, PhD, and colleagues from Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, reported data showing that nearly two thirds of people who undergo surgical reconstruction have symptoms at 6 months that could be indicative of early knee OA.

Knee symptoms indicative of OA declined to 53% at 12 months and 45% at 24 months.

“It’s a bit complex — we can’t outright say arthritis is developing, but there’s a large group of patients whose symptoms linger long after surgery,” Dr. Harkey said in a press release.

“Often, clinicians assume that these postoperative symptoms will naturally improve as patients reengage with their usual activities. However, what we’re seeing suggests these symptoms persist and likely require a targeted approach to manage or improve them,” Dr. Harkey said.

The analysis used data on 3752 individuals aged 14-40 years who were enrolled in the New Zealand ACL Registry and who completed the KOOS at 6, 12, and 24 months after having ACL reconstruction.

Dr. Harkey and team reported that one in three people had persistent early OA symptoms at 2 years, while 23% had no early OA symptoms at any timepoint.

The studies were independently supported. Dr. Filbay and Dr. Harkey had no relevant financial relationships to report.

Dr. Filbay and colleagues have developed a treatment decision aid for individuals who have sustained an ACL injury. This provides information on the different treatment options available and how they compare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Nearly one third of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries appear to heal without surgery, according to an analysis of three-dimensional MRI data taken from the NACOX study, presented as a late-breaking poster at the OARSI 2024 World Congress. 

At 2 years after injury, three-dimensional MRI showed that 13 of 43 (30%) knees had evidence of normal, continuous ACL fibers. Moreover, a further 14 (33%) knees had a continuous ACL fiber structure following rehabilitation alone. ACL fibers were partly (16%) or completely (21%) ruptured in the remainder of cases.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“If you think of the ACL like a rope, when there is continuity, it means those fibers have rejoined,” study coauthor Stephanie Filbay, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne in Australia, told this news organization.

“Within that, there’s a few variations of healing that we’re seeing. Some look like they’ve never been injured, while some have rejoined but appear thinner or longer than a normal ACL,” Dr. Filbay said.

She added: “What all this research is showing is that it’s happening at a much higher rate than we thought possible. And in some of the studies, it looks like ACL healing is associated with very favorable outcomes.”

At OARSI 2024, Dr. Filbay presented additional data from her and others’ research on the relationships between ACL healing and long-term functional outcomes and osteoarthritis (OA) incidence in comparisons between patients’ treatment pathways: Early ACL surgery, rehabilitation followed by delayed surgery, or rehabilitation only.
 

Healing Without Surgery

The idea that the ACL can heal without surgery is relatively recent and perhaps still not widely accepted as a concept, as Dr. Filbay explained during a plenary lecture at the congress.

Dr. Filbay explained that the ideal management of ACL injury depends on the severity of knee injury and whether someone’s knee is stable after trying nonsurgical management. Results of the ACL SNNAP trial, for example, have suggested that surgical reconstruction is superior to a rehabilitation strategy for managing non-acute ACL injuries where there are persistent symptoms of instability.

However, there have been two trials — COMPARE performed in the Netherlands and KANON performed in Sweden — that found that early surgery was no better than a strategy of initial rehabilitation with the option of having a delayed ACL surgery if needed.
 

What Happens Long Term?

Posttraumatic OA is a well-known long-term consequence of ACL injury. According to a recent meta-analysis, there is a sevenfold increased risk for OA comparing people who have and have not had an ACL injury.

ACL injury also results in OA occurring at an earlier age than in people with OA who have not had an ACL injury. This has been shown to progress at a faster rate and be associated with a longer period of disability, Dr. Filbay said at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

But does the ACL really heal? Dr. Filbay thinks that it does and has been involved in several studies that have used MRI to look at how the ACL may do so.

In a recently published paper, Dr. Filbay and colleagues reported the findings from a secondary analysis of the KANON trial and found that nearly one in three (30%) of the participants who had been randomized to optional delayed surgery had MRI evidence of healing at 2 years. But when they excluded people who had delayed surgery, 53% of people managed by rehabilitation alone had evidence of healing.

The evaluation also found that those who had a healed vs non-healed ligament had better results using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and that there were better outcomes at 2 years among those with ACL healing vs those who had early or delayed ACL surgery.
 

ACL Continuity and Long-Term Outcomes

At OARSI 2024, Dr. Filbay and colleagues reported an even longer-term secondary analysis of the KANON trial on the relationship between ACL healing at 5 years and outcomes at 11 years. The results were first reported in NEJM Evidence.

Dr. Filbay reported that participants with ACL continuity on MRI at 5 years actually had worse patient-reported outcomes 11 years later than those who were managed with early or delayed ACL reconstruction.

“This does not align with previous findings suggesting better 2-year outcomes compared to the surgically managed groups,” Dr. Filbay said.

However, people with ACL continuity following rehabilitation did seem to show numerically similar or fewer signs of radiographic OA at 11 years vs the surgical groups.

Radiographic OA of the tibiofemoral joint (TFJ) or patellofemoral joint (PFJ) at 11 years was observed in a respective 14% and 21% of people with ACL continuity at 5 years (n = 14) and in 22% and 11% of people with ACL discontinuity at 5 years in the rehabilitation alone group.

By comparison, radiographic OA of the TFJ or PFJ at 11 years was seen in a respective 23% and 35% of people who had rehabilitation with delayed surgery (n = 26) and in 18% and 41% of those who had early surgery (n = 49).

These are descriptive results, Dr. Filbay said, because the numbers were too small to do a statistical analysis. Further, larger, longitudinal studies will be needed.
 

Posttraumatic OA After ACL Surgery

Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, Matthew Harkey, PhD, and colleagues from Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, reported data showing that nearly two thirds of people who undergo surgical reconstruction have symptoms at 6 months that could be indicative of early knee OA.

Knee symptoms indicative of OA declined to 53% at 12 months and 45% at 24 months.

“It’s a bit complex — we can’t outright say arthritis is developing, but there’s a large group of patients whose symptoms linger long after surgery,” Dr. Harkey said in a press release.

“Often, clinicians assume that these postoperative symptoms will naturally improve as patients reengage with their usual activities. However, what we’re seeing suggests these symptoms persist and likely require a targeted approach to manage or improve them,” Dr. Harkey said.

The analysis used data on 3752 individuals aged 14-40 years who were enrolled in the New Zealand ACL Registry and who completed the KOOS at 6, 12, and 24 months after having ACL reconstruction.

Dr. Harkey and team reported that one in three people had persistent early OA symptoms at 2 years, while 23% had no early OA symptoms at any timepoint.

The studies were independently supported. Dr. Filbay and Dr. Harkey had no relevant financial relationships to report.

Dr. Filbay and colleagues have developed a treatment decision aid for individuals who have sustained an ACL injury. This provides information on the different treatment options available and how they compare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Nearly one third of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries appear to heal without surgery, according to an analysis of three-dimensional MRI data taken from the NACOX study, presented as a late-breaking poster at the OARSI 2024 World Congress. 

At 2 years after injury, three-dimensional MRI showed that 13 of 43 (30%) knees had evidence of normal, continuous ACL fibers. Moreover, a further 14 (33%) knees had a continuous ACL fiber structure following rehabilitation alone. ACL fibers were partly (16%) or completely (21%) ruptured in the remainder of cases.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“If you think of the ACL like a rope, when there is continuity, it means those fibers have rejoined,” study coauthor Stephanie Filbay, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne in Australia, told this news organization.

“Within that, there’s a few variations of healing that we’re seeing. Some look like they’ve never been injured, while some have rejoined but appear thinner or longer than a normal ACL,” Dr. Filbay said.

She added: “What all this research is showing is that it’s happening at a much higher rate than we thought possible. And in some of the studies, it looks like ACL healing is associated with very favorable outcomes.”

At OARSI 2024, Dr. Filbay presented additional data from her and others’ research on the relationships between ACL healing and long-term functional outcomes and osteoarthritis (OA) incidence in comparisons between patients’ treatment pathways: Early ACL surgery, rehabilitation followed by delayed surgery, or rehabilitation only.
 

Healing Without Surgery

The idea that the ACL can heal without surgery is relatively recent and perhaps still not widely accepted as a concept, as Dr. Filbay explained during a plenary lecture at the congress.

Dr. Filbay explained that the ideal management of ACL injury depends on the severity of knee injury and whether someone’s knee is stable after trying nonsurgical management. Results of the ACL SNNAP trial, for example, have suggested that surgical reconstruction is superior to a rehabilitation strategy for managing non-acute ACL injuries where there are persistent symptoms of instability.

However, there have been two trials — COMPARE performed in the Netherlands and KANON performed in Sweden — that found that early surgery was no better than a strategy of initial rehabilitation with the option of having a delayed ACL surgery if needed.
 

What Happens Long Term?

Posttraumatic OA is a well-known long-term consequence of ACL injury. According to a recent meta-analysis, there is a sevenfold increased risk for OA comparing people who have and have not had an ACL injury.

ACL injury also results in OA occurring at an earlier age than in people with OA who have not had an ACL injury. This has been shown to progress at a faster rate and be associated with a longer period of disability, Dr. Filbay said at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

But does the ACL really heal? Dr. Filbay thinks that it does and has been involved in several studies that have used MRI to look at how the ACL may do so.

In a recently published paper, Dr. Filbay and colleagues reported the findings from a secondary analysis of the KANON trial and found that nearly one in three (30%) of the participants who had been randomized to optional delayed surgery had MRI evidence of healing at 2 years. But when they excluded people who had delayed surgery, 53% of people managed by rehabilitation alone had evidence of healing.

The evaluation also found that those who had a healed vs non-healed ligament had better results using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and that there were better outcomes at 2 years among those with ACL healing vs those who had early or delayed ACL surgery.
 

ACL Continuity and Long-Term Outcomes

At OARSI 2024, Dr. Filbay and colleagues reported an even longer-term secondary analysis of the KANON trial on the relationship between ACL healing at 5 years and outcomes at 11 years. The results were first reported in NEJM Evidence.

Dr. Filbay reported that participants with ACL continuity on MRI at 5 years actually had worse patient-reported outcomes 11 years later than those who were managed with early or delayed ACL reconstruction.

“This does not align with previous findings suggesting better 2-year outcomes compared to the surgically managed groups,” Dr. Filbay said.

However, people with ACL continuity following rehabilitation did seem to show numerically similar or fewer signs of radiographic OA at 11 years vs the surgical groups.

Radiographic OA of the tibiofemoral joint (TFJ) or patellofemoral joint (PFJ) at 11 years was observed in a respective 14% and 21% of people with ACL continuity at 5 years (n = 14) and in 22% and 11% of people with ACL discontinuity at 5 years in the rehabilitation alone group.

By comparison, radiographic OA of the TFJ or PFJ at 11 years was seen in a respective 23% and 35% of people who had rehabilitation with delayed surgery (n = 26) and in 18% and 41% of those who had early surgery (n = 49).

These are descriptive results, Dr. Filbay said, because the numbers were too small to do a statistical analysis. Further, larger, longitudinal studies will be needed.
 

Posttraumatic OA After ACL Surgery

Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, Matthew Harkey, PhD, and colleagues from Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, reported data showing that nearly two thirds of people who undergo surgical reconstruction have symptoms at 6 months that could be indicative of early knee OA.

Knee symptoms indicative of OA declined to 53% at 12 months and 45% at 24 months.

“It’s a bit complex — we can’t outright say arthritis is developing, but there’s a large group of patients whose symptoms linger long after surgery,” Dr. Harkey said in a press release.

“Often, clinicians assume that these postoperative symptoms will naturally improve as patients reengage with their usual activities. However, what we’re seeing suggests these symptoms persist and likely require a targeted approach to manage or improve them,” Dr. Harkey said.

The analysis used data on 3752 individuals aged 14-40 years who were enrolled in the New Zealand ACL Registry and who completed the KOOS at 6, 12, and 24 months after having ACL reconstruction.

Dr. Harkey and team reported that one in three people had persistent early OA symptoms at 2 years, while 23% had no early OA symptoms at any timepoint.

The studies were independently supported. Dr. Filbay and Dr. Harkey had no relevant financial relationships to report.

Dr. Filbay and colleagues have developed a treatment decision aid for individuals who have sustained an ACL injury. This provides information on the different treatment options available and how they compare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Meningitis has been highlighted as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia in a nationwide, propensity-matched study of hospital admissions.

In multivariate analysis, the odds of meningitis were threefold higher in patients admitted with trigeminal neuralgia than in matched controls without trigeminal neuralgia.

This is the first nationwide population-based study of the rare, chronic pain disorder to identify the prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the United States and risk factors contributing to trigeminal neuralgia development.

“Our results affirm known associations between trigeminal neuralgia and comorbidities like multiple sclerosis, and they also identify meningitis as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia,” said investigator Megan Tang, BS, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Strong Clinical Risk Factors

Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare pain disorder involving neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve. Its etiology and risk factors are poorly understood. Current literature is based on limited datasets and reports inconsistent risk factors across studies.

To better understand the disorder, researchers used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes to identify trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019, and then propensity matched them 1:1 to non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions based on demographics, socioeconomic status, and Charlson comorbidity index scores.

Univariate analysis identified 136,345 trigeminal neuralgia admissions or an overall prevalence of 0.096%.

Trigeminal neuralgia admissions had lower morbidity than non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions and a higher prevalence of non-White patients, private insurance, and prolonged length of stay, Ms. Tang said.

Patients admitted for trigeminal neuralgia also had a higher prevalence of several chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis; inflammatory conditions like lupus, meningitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease; and neurologic conditions including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke, and neurovascular compression disorders.

In multivariate analysis, investigators identified meningitis as a previously unknown risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; P < .001).

Other strong risk factors were neurovascular compression disorders (OR, 39.82; P < .001) and multiple sclerosis (OR, 12.41; P < .001). Non-White race (Black; OR, 1.09; Hispanic; OR, 1.23; Other; OR, 1.24) and use of Medicaid (OR, 1.07) and other insurance (OR, 1.17) were demographic risk factors for trigeminal neuralgia.

“This finding points us toward future work exploring the potential mechanisms of predictors, most notably inflammatory conditions in trigeminal neuralgia development,” Ms. Tang concluded.

She declined to comment further on the findings, noting the investigators are still finalizing the results and interpretation.
 

Ask About Meningitis, Fever

Commenting on the findings, Michael D. Staudt, MD, MSc, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said that many patients who present with classical trigeminal neuralgia will have a blood vessel on MRI that is pressing on the trigeminal nerve.

“Obviously, the nerve is bathed in cerebrospinal fluid. So, if there’s an inflammatory marker, inflammation, or infection that could be injuring the nerve in a way that we don’t yet understand, that could be something that could cause trigeminal neuralgia without having to see a blood vessel,” said Dr. Staudt, who was not involved in the study. “It makes sense, theoretically. Something that’s inflammatory, something that’s irritating, that’s novel.”

Currently, predictive markers include clinical history, response to classical medications such as carbamazepine, and MRI findings, Dr. Staudt noted.

“Someone shows up with symptoms and MRI, and it’s basically do they have a blood vessel or not,” he said. “Treatments are generally within the same categories, but we don’t think it’s the same sort of success rate as seeing a blood vessel.”

Further research is needed, but, in the meantime, Dr. Staudt said, “We can ask patients who show up with facial pain if they’ve ever had meningitis or some sort of fever that preceded their onset of pain.”

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Tang and coauthor Jack Y. Zhang, MS, reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Staudt reported serving as a consultant for Abbott and as a scientific adviser and consultant for Boston Scientific.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Meningitis has been highlighted as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia in a nationwide, propensity-matched study of hospital admissions.

In multivariate analysis, the odds of meningitis were threefold higher in patients admitted with trigeminal neuralgia than in matched controls without trigeminal neuralgia.

This is the first nationwide population-based study of the rare, chronic pain disorder to identify the prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the United States and risk factors contributing to trigeminal neuralgia development.

“Our results affirm known associations between trigeminal neuralgia and comorbidities like multiple sclerosis, and they also identify meningitis as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia,” said investigator Megan Tang, BS, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Strong Clinical Risk Factors

Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare pain disorder involving neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve. Its etiology and risk factors are poorly understood. Current literature is based on limited datasets and reports inconsistent risk factors across studies.

To better understand the disorder, researchers used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes to identify trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019, and then propensity matched them 1:1 to non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions based on demographics, socioeconomic status, and Charlson comorbidity index scores.

Univariate analysis identified 136,345 trigeminal neuralgia admissions or an overall prevalence of 0.096%.

Trigeminal neuralgia admissions had lower morbidity than non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions and a higher prevalence of non-White patients, private insurance, and prolonged length of stay, Ms. Tang said.

Patients admitted for trigeminal neuralgia also had a higher prevalence of several chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis; inflammatory conditions like lupus, meningitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease; and neurologic conditions including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke, and neurovascular compression disorders.

In multivariate analysis, investigators identified meningitis as a previously unknown risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; P < .001).

Other strong risk factors were neurovascular compression disorders (OR, 39.82; P < .001) and multiple sclerosis (OR, 12.41; P < .001). Non-White race (Black; OR, 1.09; Hispanic; OR, 1.23; Other; OR, 1.24) and use of Medicaid (OR, 1.07) and other insurance (OR, 1.17) were demographic risk factors for trigeminal neuralgia.

“This finding points us toward future work exploring the potential mechanisms of predictors, most notably inflammatory conditions in trigeminal neuralgia development,” Ms. Tang concluded.

She declined to comment further on the findings, noting the investigators are still finalizing the results and interpretation.
 

Ask About Meningitis, Fever

Commenting on the findings, Michael D. Staudt, MD, MSc, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said that many patients who present with classical trigeminal neuralgia will have a blood vessel on MRI that is pressing on the trigeminal nerve.

“Obviously, the nerve is bathed in cerebrospinal fluid. So, if there’s an inflammatory marker, inflammation, or infection that could be injuring the nerve in a way that we don’t yet understand, that could be something that could cause trigeminal neuralgia without having to see a blood vessel,” said Dr. Staudt, who was not involved in the study. “It makes sense, theoretically. Something that’s inflammatory, something that’s irritating, that’s novel.”

Currently, predictive markers include clinical history, response to classical medications such as carbamazepine, and MRI findings, Dr. Staudt noted.

“Someone shows up with symptoms and MRI, and it’s basically do they have a blood vessel or not,” he said. “Treatments are generally within the same categories, but we don’t think it’s the same sort of success rate as seeing a blood vessel.”

Further research is needed, but, in the meantime, Dr. Staudt said, “We can ask patients who show up with facial pain if they’ve ever had meningitis or some sort of fever that preceded their onset of pain.”

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Tang and coauthor Jack Y. Zhang, MS, reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Staudt reported serving as a consultant for Abbott and as a scientific adviser and consultant for Boston Scientific.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Meningitis has been highlighted as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia in a nationwide, propensity-matched study of hospital admissions.

In multivariate analysis, the odds of meningitis were threefold higher in patients admitted with trigeminal neuralgia than in matched controls without trigeminal neuralgia.

This is the first nationwide population-based study of the rare, chronic pain disorder to identify the prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the United States and risk factors contributing to trigeminal neuralgia development.

“Our results affirm known associations between trigeminal neuralgia and comorbidities like multiple sclerosis, and they also identify meningitis as a novel risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia,” said investigator Megan Tang, BS, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Strong Clinical Risk Factors

Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare pain disorder involving neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve. Its etiology and risk factors are poorly understood. Current literature is based on limited datasets and reports inconsistent risk factors across studies.

To better understand the disorder, researchers used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes to identify trigeminal neuralgia admissions in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019, and then propensity matched them 1:1 to non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions based on demographics, socioeconomic status, and Charlson comorbidity index scores.

Univariate analysis identified 136,345 trigeminal neuralgia admissions or an overall prevalence of 0.096%.

Trigeminal neuralgia admissions had lower morbidity than non-trigeminal neuralgia admissions and a higher prevalence of non-White patients, private insurance, and prolonged length of stay, Ms. Tang said.

Patients admitted for trigeminal neuralgia also had a higher prevalence of several chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis; inflammatory conditions like lupus, meningitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease; and neurologic conditions including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke, and neurovascular compression disorders.

In multivariate analysis, investigators identified meningitis as a previously unknown risk factor for trigeminal neuralgia (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; P < .001).

Other strong risk factors were neurovascular compression disorders (OR, 39.82; P < .001) and multiple sclerosis (OR, 12.41; P < .001). Non-White race (Black; OR, 1.09; Hispanic; OR, 1.23; Other; OR, 1.24) and use of Medicaid (OR, 1.07) and other insurance (OR, 1.17) were demographic risk factors for trigeminal neuralgia.

“This finding points us toward future work exploring the potential mechanisms of predictors, most notably inflammatory conditions in trigeminal neuralgia development,” Ms. Tang concluded.

She declined to comment further on the findings, noting the investigators are still finalizing the results and interpretation.
 

Ask About Meningitis, Fever

Commenting on the findings, Michael D. Staudt, MD, MSc, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said that many patients who present with classical trigeminal neuralgia will have a blood vessel on MRI that is pressing on the trigeminal nerve.

“Obviously, the nerve is bathed in cerebrospinal fluid. So, if there’s an inflammatory marker, inflammation, or infection that could be injuring the nerve in a way that we don’t yet understand, that could be something that could cause trigeminal neuralgia without having to see a blood vessel,” said Dr. Staudt, who was not involved in the study. “It makes sense, theoretically. Something that’s inflammatory, something that’s irritating, that’s novel.”

Currently, predictive markers include clinical history, response to classical medications such as carbamazepine, and MRI findings, Dr. Staudt noted.

“Someone shows up with symptoms and MRI, and it’s basically do they have a blood vessel or not,” he said. “Treatments are generally within the same categories, but we don’t think it’s the same sort of success rate as seeing a blood vessel.”

Further research is needed, but, in the meantime, Dr. Staudt said, “We can ask patients who show up with facial pain if they’ve ever had meningitis or some sort of fever that preceded their onset of pain.”

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Tang and coauthor Jack Y. Zhang, MS, reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Staudt reported serving as a consultant for Abbott and as a scientific adviser and consultant for Boston Scientific.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.