MDedge Rheumatology

CORRECTED April 7, 2024 // An earlier version of this article misstated the clinical factors of children with CNO that were significantly associated with the need for second-line treatment, as well as the scope of assessments of aspects of disease involvement and their relationship to total number of days on NSAID monotherapy and the odds of needing a second-line treatment.

Children with chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) who had symmetric bone lesions or multiple affected body regions were more likely to need second-line treatment than were patients without these features, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

CNO is an auto-inflammatory condition that results in sterile inflammatory bone lesions and most commonly affects the long bones of people who are skeletally immature. After a first-line treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), second-line treatments per CARRA guidelines typically include methotrexate or sulfasalazine, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors, and bisphosphonates.

“Since it’s common for there to be long delays before diagnosis of CNO, it is important to start an effective treatment promptly,” Katherine D. Nowicki, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, told attendees. “While we have guidance on which treatments to use, it remains unclear which patients are most likely to respond to NSAIDs and which patients will require a second-line treatment.”
 

Findings Helpful for Counseling

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, MS, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in rheumatology at Riley Children’s Health at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, who was not involved in the research, said the findings of this study are helpful in “counseling families and patients at that initial visit and having a lower threshold to start a second-line agent if NSAID monotherapy is not working well.”

There are no clinical trials on patients with CNO, Dr. Oliver said, so very little data exist for guiding clinicians on the best therapy to use and how long to keep patients on therapy while minimizing risk for flare when coming off therapy.

A key clinical takeaway for clinicians is being able to tell patients with unifocal disease that they may not need to be on NSAIDs for a long period and can still do well, Dr. Oliver said. For patients with multifocal disease with symmetric bone lesions or multiple regions involved with CNO, “pediatric rheumatologists should have a lower threshold to start a second-line therapy for these patients,” she said.

Findings From Largest Single-Center Cohort in North America

Their topline findings revealed that patients with unifocal disease at diagnosis required 47% fewer total days of NSAID monotherapy treatment than those with multifocal disease at diagnosis, Dr. Nowicki told attendees. Having symmetric bone lesions increased the likelihood of needing a second-line therapy by 6.86 times compared with those without symmetric bone lesions, and for each additional region affected by CNO, the odds of needing a second-line therapy increased by a factor of 1.94, she said.

There were no significant differences in patient ages or sex or in mean interval from symptom onset to treatment onset across treatment groups. However, patients who received second-line treatment did have a significantly longer average time from symptom onset to diagnosis (324 days) than those who had a short course (119 days) or long course (270 days) of NSAIDs (P = .023). Mean follow-up was also significantly longer for patients with second-line treatment (3.8 years) or long-course NSAIDs (2.7 years) than for those with short-course NSAIDs (1.2 years; P < .001).

Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein did not differ across treatment groups nor did presence of a CNO lesion on x-rays at presentation. But significantly more patients in the second-line group had a biopsy (94%) than in the long-course (74%) or short-course (69%) NSAID groups (P = .0025). They were also more likely to have one or more whole-body MRIs. Most of the patients on short-course (88%) and long-course (82%) NSAIDs did not undergo a whole-body MRI, whereas most patients (59%) on a second-line treatment underwent at least one and 24% underwent three or more MRIs (P < .001).

More patients on short-course NSAIDs had unifocal disease at diagnosis (72%) than those on long-course NSAIDs (47%) or a second-line treatment (41%; P = .015). Patients on a second-line treatment were also more likely to have symmetric involvement in the same bone (73% vs 16% short-course and 23% long-course NSAIDs) and to have more regions of the body affected (P < .001).

There were significant differences in mean days on NSAID monotherapy and number of NSAIDs trialed. Patients on a second-line treatment had a mean 441 days of NSAID monotherapy compared with 175 days for patients on short-course NSAIDs and 725 for patients on long-course NSAIDs (P < .001). Nearly all the short-course patients (94%) trialed a single NSAID, while more than half the long-course and second-line patients trialed two or more (P < .001).

None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had complications. More patients on second-line treatments had vertebral height loss (20%) or amplified pain (14%) than long-course patients (13% and 5%, respectively; P = .02).

At the study’s end date, nearly all the patients on short-course NSAIDs were in remission (94%) compared with 71% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and only half of patients (51%) on the second-line treatment (P < .001). None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had active disease compared with 11% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and 20% of patients on second-line treatments (P = .02).

This study included the largest single-center cohort of patients with CNO in North America, all treated at a multidisciplinary clinic with a protocolized treatment approach, but it remains limited by its retrospective nature and the missing data for 70 patients, Dr. Nowicki said. She noted that whole-body MRI was not systematically performed on all patients, so it was possible patients without a whole-body MRI had undetected asymptomatic lesions.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Oliver said retrospective studies like these can help pediatric rheumatologists get an idea of reasonable therapies to start, how long to keep patients on them, and when to escalate to the next step.

“I hope one day our CNO research will be able to tell us about which is the optimal second-line therapy for patients, such as bisphosphonates vs TNF inhibitors vs DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Oliver said.

Dr. Nowicki and Dr. Oliver reported no disclosures. Information on study funding was not provided.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 7, 2024 // An earlier version of this article misstated the clinical factors of children with CNO that were significantly associated with the need for second-line treatment, as well as the scope of assessments of aspects of disease involvement and their relationship to total number of days on NSAID monotherapy and the odds of needing a second-line treatment.

Children with chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) who had symmetric bone lesions or multiple affected body regions were more likely to need second-line treatment than were patients without these features, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

CNO is an auto-inflammatory condition that results in sterile inflammatory bone lesions and most commonly affects the long bones of people who are skeletally immature. After a first-line treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), second-line treatments per CARRA guidelines typically include methotrexate or sulfasalazine, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors, and bisphosphonates.

“Since it’s common for there to be long delays before diagnosis of CNO, it is important to start an effective treatment promptly,” Katherine D. Nowicki, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, told attendees. “While we have guidance on which treatments to use, it remains unclear which patients are most likely to respond to NSAIDs and which patients will require a second-line treatment.”
 

Findings Helpful for Counseling

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, MS, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in rheumatology at Riley Children’s Health at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, who was not involved in the research, said the findings of this study are helpful in “counseling families and patients at that initial visit and having a lower threshold to start a second-line agent if NSAID monotherapy is not working well.”

There are no clinical trials on patients with CNO, Dr. Oliver said, so very little data exist for guiding clinicians on the best therapy to use and how long to keep patients on therapy while minimizing risk for flare when coming off therapy.

A key clinical takeaway for clinicians is being able to tell patients with unifocal disease that they may not need to be on NSAIDs for a long period and can still do well, Dr. Oliver said. For patients with multifocal disease with symmetric bone lesions or multiple regions involved with CNO, “pediatric rheumatologists should have a lower threshold to start a second-line therapy for these patients,” she said.

Findings From Largest Single-Center Cohort in North America

Their topline findings revealed that patients with unifocal disease at diagnosis required 47% fewer total days of NSAID monotherapy treatment than those with multifocal disease at diagnosis, Dr. Nowicki told attendees. Having symmetric bone lesions increased the likelihood of needing a second-line therapy by 6.86 times compared with those without symmetric bone lesions, and for each additional region affected by CNO, the odds of needing a second-line therapy increased by a factor of 1.94, she said.

There were no significant differences in patient ages or sex or in mean interval from symptom onset to treatment onset across treatment groups. However, patients who received second-line treatment did have a significantly longer average time from symptom onset to diagnosis (324 days) than those who had a short course (119 days) or long course (270 days) of NSAIDs (P = .023). Mean follow-up was also significantly longer for patients with second-line treatment (3.8 years) or long-course NSAIDs (2.7 years) than for those with short-course NSAIDs (1.2 years; P < .001).

Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein did not differ across treatment groups nor did presence of a CNO lesion on x-rays at presentation. But significantly more patients in the second-line group had a biopsy (94%) than in the long-course (74%) or short-course (69%) NSAID groups (P = .0025). They were also more likely to have one or more whole-body MRIs. Most of the patients on short-course (88%) and long-course (82%) NSAIDs did not undergo a whole-body MRI, whereas most patients (59%) on a second-line treatment underwent at least one and 24% underwent three or more MRIs (P < .001).

More patients on short-course NSAIDs had unifocal disease at diagnosis (72%) than those on long-course NSAIDs (47%) or a second-line treatment (41%; P = .015). Patients on a second-line treatment were also more likely to have symmetric involvement in the same bone (73% vs 16% short-course and 23% long-course NSAIDs) and to have more regions of the body affected (P < .001).

There were significant differences in mean days on NSAID monotherapy and number of NSAIDs trialed. Patients on a second-line treatment had a mean 441 days of NSAID monotherapy compared with 175 days for patients on short-course NSAIDs and 725 for patients on long-course NSAIDs (P < .001). Nearly all the short-course patients (94%) trialed a single NSAID, while more than half the long-course and second-line patients trialed two or more (P < .001).

None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had complications. More patients on second-line treatments had vertebral height loss (20%) or amplified pain (14%) than long-course patients (13% and 5%, respectively; P = .02).

At the study’s end date, nearly all the patients on short-course NSAIDs were in remission (94%) compared with 71% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and only half of patients (51%) on the second-line treatment (P < .001). None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had active disease compared with 11% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and 20% of patients on second-line treatments (P = .02).

This study included the largest single-center cohort of patients with CNO in North America, all treated at a multidisciplinary clinic with a protocolized treatment approach, but it remains limited by its retrospective nature and the missing data for 70 patients, Dr. Nowicki said. She noted that whole-body MRI was not systematically performed on all patients, so it was possible patients without a whole-body MRI had undetected asymptomatic lesions.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Oliver said retrospective studies like these can help pediatric rheumatologists get an idea of reasonable therapies to start, how long to keep patients on them, and when to escalate to the next step.

“I hope one day our CNO research will be able to tell us about which is the optimal second-line therapy for patients, such as bisphosphonates vs TNF inhibitors vs DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Oliver said.

Dr. Nowicki and Dr. Oliver reported no disclosures. Information on study funding was not provided.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 7, 2024 // An earlier version of this article misstated the clinical factors of children with CNO that were significantly associated with the need for second-line treatment, as well as the scope of assessments of aspects of disease involvement and their relationship to total number of days on NSAID monotherapy and the odds of needing a second-line treatment.

Children with chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) who had symmetric bone lesions or multiple affected body regions were more likely to need second-line treatment than were patients without these features, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

CNO is an auto-inflammatory condition that results in sterile inflammatory bone lesions and most commonly affects the long bones of people who are skeletally immature. After a first-line treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), second-line treatments per CARRA guidelines typically include methotrexate or sulfasalazine, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors, and bisphosphonates.

“Since it’s common for there to be long delays before diagnosis of CNO, it is important to start an effective treatment promptly,” Katherine D. Nowicki, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, told attendees. “While we have guidance on which treatments to use, it remains unclear which patients are most likely to respond to NSAIDs and which patients will require a second-line treatment.”
 

Findings Helpful for Counseling

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, MS, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in rheumatology at Riley Children’s Health at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, who was not involved in the research, said the findings of this study are helpful in “counseling families and patients at that initial visit and having a lower threshold to start a second-line agent if NSAID monotherapy is not working well.”

There are no clinical trials on patients with CNO, Dr. Oliver said, so very little data exist for guiding clinicians on the best therapy to use and how long to keep patients on therapy while minimizing risk for flare when coming off therapy.

A key clinical takeaway for clinicians is being able to tell patients with unifocal disease that they may not need to be on NSAIDs for a long period and can still do well, Dr. Oliver said. For patients with multifocal disease with symmetric bone lesions or multiple regions involved with CNO, “pediatric rheumatologists should have a lower threshold to start a second-line therapy for these patients,” she said.

Findings From Largest Single-Center Cohort in North America

Their topline findings revealed that patients with unifocal disease at diagnosis required 47% fewer total days of NSAID monotherapy treatment than those with multifocal disease at diagnosis, Dr. Nowicki told attendees. Having symmetric bone lesions increased the likelihood of needing a second-line therapy by 6.86 times compared with those without symmetric bone lesions, and for each additional region affected by CNO, the odds of needing a second-line therapy increased by a factor of 1.94, she said.

There were no significant differences in patient ages or sex or in mean interval from symptom onset to treatment onset across treatment groups. However, patients who received second-line treatment did have a significantly longer average time from symptom onset to diagnosis (324 days) than those who had a short course (119 days) or long course (270 days) of NSAIDs (P = .023). Mean follow-up was also significantly longer for patients with second-line treatment (3.8 years) or long-course NSAIDs (2.7 years) than for those with short-course NSAIDs (1.2 years; P < .001).

Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein did not differ across treatment groups nor did presence of a CNO lesion on x-rays at presentation. But significantly more patients in the second-line group had a biopsy (94%) than in the long-course (74%) or short-course (69%) NSAID groups (P = .0025). They were also more likely to have one or more whole-body MRIs. Most of the patients on short-course (88%) and long-course (82%) NSAIDs did not undergo a whole-body MRI, whereas most patients (59%) on a second-line treatment underwent at least one and 24% underwent three or more MRIs (P < .001).

More patients on short-course NSAIDs had unifocal disease at diagnosis (72%) than those on long-course NSAIDs (47%) or a second-line treatment (41%; P = .015). Patients on a second-line treatment were also more likely to have symmetric involvement in the same bone (73% vs 16% short-course and 23% long-course NSAIDs) and to have more regions of the body affected (P < .001).

There were significant differences in mean days on NSAID monotherapy and number of NSAIDs trialed. Patients on a second-line treatment had a mean 441 days of NSAID monotherapy compared with 175 days for patients on short-course NSAIDs and 725 for patients on long-course NSAIDs (P < .001). Nearly all the short-course patients (94%) trialed a single NSAID, while more than half the long-course and second-line patients trialed two or more (P < .001).

None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had complications. More patients on second-line treatments had vertebral height loss (20%) or amplified pain (14%) than long-course patients (13% and 5%, respectively; P = .02).

At the study’s end date, nearly all the patients on short-course NSAIDs were in remission (94%) compared with 71% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and only half of patients (51%) on the second-line treatment (P < .001). None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had active disease compared with 11% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and 20% of patients on second-line treatments (P = .02).

This study included the largest single-center cohort of patients with CNO in North America, all treated at a multidisciplinary clinic with a protocolized treatment approach, but it remains limited by its retrospective nature and the missing data for 70 patients, Dr. Nowicki said. She noted that whole-body MRI was not systematically performed on all patients, so it was possible patients without a whole-body MRI had undetected asymptomatic lesions.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Oliver said retrospective studies like these can help pediatric rheumatologists get an idea of reasonable therapies to start, how long to keep patients on them, and when to escalate to the next step.

“I hope one day our CNO research will be able to tell us about which is the optimal second-line therapy for patients, such as bisphosphonates vs TNF inhibitors vs DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Oliver said.

Dr. Nowicki and Dr. Oliver reported no disclosures. Information on study funding was not provided.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

The rates of screening for latent tuberculosis remain suboptimal among new users of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), with notable variations by medication type and demographic characteristics. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Professional society guidelines recommend screening for tuberculosis before starting treatment with most b/tsDMARDs.
• In an attempt to estimate the extent of latent tuberculosis screening, researchers combined claims and electronic health record datasets to evaluate 2853 new b/tsDMARD users (mean age, 73 years; 72% women; and 73% non-Hispanic White).
• The primary analysis focused on assessing the proportion of patients screened for latent tuberculosis in the year before starting a new b/tsDMARD.
• A sensitivity analysis evaluated the extent of screening within the 3 years preceding the initiation of a new b/tsDMARD.
• A total of 65.6% of patients received screening for latent tuberculosis in the year before initiating a new b/tsDMARD.
• Screening rates improved only slightly on expanding the window to 3 years, with 72.9% of patients receiving any tuberculosis screening.
• When stratified by drug type, over half of new users of Janus kinase inhibitors and nearly 90% of new users of interleukin-17 inhibitors had not received screening.
• Hispanic patients had lower odds of tuberculosis screening within 1 year than White patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.90), as did those in the highest socioeconomic quartile, compared with the lowest (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94).

IN PRACTICE:

“Educational initiatives, team-based care delivery, task shifting, and technological interventions to address observed gaps in patient safety procedures are needed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, and published online in Arthritis Care & Research

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked access to scanned documents or clinical notes, which may have resulted in the omission of a small number of tests that had no Medicare billing. Moreover, the study was restricted to a 3-year lookback period, potentially missing some remote screenings. The findings may have limited generalizability to younger patients or those not dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The rates of screening for latent tuberculosis remain suboptimal among new users of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), with notable variations by medication type and demographic characteristics. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Professional society guidelines recommend screening for tuberculosis before starting treatment with most b/tsDMARDs.
• In an attempt to estimate the extent of latent tuberculosis screening, researchers combined claims and electronic health record datasets to evaluate 2853 new b/tsDMARD users (mean age, 73 years; 72% women; and 73% non-Hispanic White).
• The primary analysis focused on assessing the proportion of patients screened for latent tuberculosis in the year before starting a new b/tsDMARD.
• A sensitivity analysis evaluated the extent of screening within the 3 years preceding the initiation of a new b/tsDMARD.
• A total of 65.6% of patients received screening for latent tuberculosis in the year before initiating a new b/tsDMARD.
• Screening rates improved only slightly on expanding the window to 3 years, with 72.9% of patients receiving any tuberculosis screening.
• When stratified by drug type, over half of new users of Janus kinase inhibitors and nearly 90% of new users of interleukin-17 inhibitors had not received screening.
• Hispanic patients had lower odds of tuberculosis screening within 1 year than White patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.90), as did those in the highest socioeconomic quartile, compared with the lowest (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94).

IN PRACTICE:

“Educational initiatives, team-based care delivery, task shifting, and technological interventions to address observed gaps in patient safety procedures are needed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, and published online in Arthritis Care & Research

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked access to scanned documents or clinical notes, which may have resulted in the omission of a small number of tests that had no Medicare billing. Moreover, the study was restricted to a 3-year lookback period, potentially missing some remote screenings. The findings may have limited generalizability to younger patients or those not dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The rates of screening for latent tuberculosis remain suboptimal among new users of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), with notable variations by medication type and demographic characteristics. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Professional society guidelines recommend screening for tuberculosis before starting treatment with most b/tsDMARDs.
• In an attempt to estimate the extent of latent tuberculosis screening, researchers combined claims and electronic health record datasets to evaluate 2853 new b/tsDMARD users (mean age, 73 years; 72% women; and 73% non-Hispanic White).
• The primary analysis focused on assessing the proportion of patients screened for latent tuberculosis in the year before starting a new b/tsDMARD.
• A sensitivity analysis evaluated the extent of screening within the 3 years preceding the initiation of a new b/tsDMARD.
• A total of 65.6% of patients received screening for latent tuberculosis in the year before initiating a new b/tsDMARD.
• Screening rates improved only slightly on expanding the window to 3 years, with 72.9% of patients receiving any tuberculosis screening.
• When stratified by drug type, over half of new users of Janus kinase inhibitors and nearly 90% of new users of interleukin-17 inhibitors had not received screening.
• Hispanic patients had lower odds of tuberculosis screening within 1 year than White patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.90), as did those in the highest socioeconomic quartile, compared with the lowest (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94).

IN PRACTICE:

“Educational initiatives, team-based care delivery, task shifting, and technological interventions to address observed gaps in patient safety procedures are needed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, and published online in Arthritis Care & Research

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked access to scanned documents or clinical notes, which may have resulted in the omission of a small number of tests that had no Medicare billing. Moreover, the study was restricted to a 3-year lookback period, potentially missing some remote screenings. The findings may have limited generalizability to younger patients or those not dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

Alexander Girgis

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Wes Linda

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

Alexander Girgis

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Wes Linda

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

Alexander Girgis

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Wes Linda

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

CORRECTED April 16, 2024 // An earlier version of this article stated incorrect percentages of patients who never received any biologics during the study's 3-year period but improved rapidly or moderately.

Early initiation of biologics — within the first 2 months of symptom presentation — appears to have a significant impact on how rapidly patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) improve, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Our study provides evidence that early use of biologics can significantly alter the disease trajectory of patients with JIA,” Mei-Sing Ong, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, told attendees. At the same time, however, not all patients who improved rapidly during a 3-year follow-up period needed biologics, a finding that Ong said the researchers are continuing to investigate.

Marinka Twilt, MD, MScE, PhD, chair of CARRA’s JIA Research Committee and a pediatric rheumatologist and clinician scientist at Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, Canada, was not involved in the research but said the continued sustained remission in patients who improved rapidly is very reassuring.

Dr. Twilt

“We always wonder if initial response will be sustained or if patients tend to flare after the initial treatment,” Dr. Twilt told this news organization. “To see the sustained response up to 3 years is fantastic.” She added that it would be enlightening to see more information about patients who rapidly improved over 3 years, including whether they were still taking a [conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)] and/or biologic.

“A new diagnosis can be overwhelming for families, and this sometimes leads to step-up therapy to not overwhelm them more with information on new drugs,” Dr. Twilt said. “This study shows that an earlier start is beneficial, and this should be discussed with families early on so there is less delay in early treatment.”

Canada and many US states currently require 3 months of conventional DMARD treatment before patients can start a biologic, Dr. Twilt said, yet “this study shows the additive benefit of using a biologic within 2 months of starting a DMARD, which hopefully will lead to insurance companies adopting this threshold.”

The STOP-JIA study is a prospective observational study that compares the effectiveness of three different treatment plans for JIA. A Step-Up cohort of 257 patients received conventional antirheumatic monotherapy initially, with a biologic added at 3 months or later as needed. The Early Combination cohort of 100 patients received conventional antirheumatic therapy with a biologic from the start. The Biologic First cohort of 43 patients began taking a biologic as a first-line therapy.

In previously reported results of the study at 12 months’ follow-up, there was no significant difference between the Step-Up and Biologic First groups, but there were significant differences between the Step-Up and Early Combination groups. Significantly more patients in the Early Combination group (58.8%) than in the Step-Up group (42.8%) had inactive disease, based on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 (cJADAS-10) (P = .03). Similarly, 81% of Early Combination patients achieved the American College of Rheumatology 70% improvement criteria, compared with 62% of the Step-Up patients (P = .01).

To learn whether the timing of starting a biologic influenced the disease trajectory over time, the researchers compared subgroups of patients with similar trajectories.

“Assessing treatment outcomes at a single point in time does not give us a complete picture of the effects of treatment on disease trajectory, which is an important outcome given that JIA is characterized by a relapsing-remitting course,” Dr. Ong told attendees.

Patients were sorted in the slow, moderate, or rapid improvement trajectories. In previously reported data at 12 months’ follow-up, patients’ odds of achieving rapid improvement were 3.6 times greater if they had started a biologic within 3 months.

This study compared patients’ trajectories over 3 years in the 259 patients (65% of the original cohort) who had at least one cJADAS-10 assessment in each year of follow-up. Most patients (66.8%) were in the rapid improvement class, with 25.9% in the moderate improvement class and 7.3% in the slow improvement class.

Patients in the rapid improvement group achieved inactive disease (cJADAS-10 of 2.5 or less) within 1 year and maintained inactive disease through the second and third years. The moderate and low improvement groups both had higher disease activity at baseline, but the moderate group continued to improve in years 2 and 3, with minimal disease by year 3, on the basis of the cJADAS-10 scores of 2.5-5. The slow group continued to experience moderate disease activity during years 2 and 3.

The findings also revealed that the earlier patients began a biologic, the more likely they were to be in the rapid improvement group than the slow improvement group. Participants who started a biologic in the first month had more than five times greater odds of being in the rapid improvement group than in the slow improvement group (odds ratio [OR], 5.33; P = .017).

Those who started a biologic in the second month were also more likely to be in the rapid improvement group (OR, 2.67; P = .032). For those who began a biologic by the third month, the odds of improving rapidly were not statistically significant, though Ong noted that could have been because of the small sample size. There was also no significant difference between those who improved moderately vs slowly based on when a biologic was initiated.

It would be helpful to learn whether any of the patients in the rapid improvement group were able to stop medications or whether they all continued treatment during the 3 years of follow-up, Dr. Twilt said. “Does early treatment with biologics not only lead to early remission after initiation but also to the possibility of stopping treatment earlier and remaining in remission?” she asked.

The researchers also found that not all patients needed biologics to end up in the rapid improvement group. Among patients who never received any biologics during the 3-year period, 83% improved rapidly and 17% improved moderately. Yet the researchers identified no significant differences in demographics or clinical factors between patients who received biologics and those who did not.

“The fact that there is a group of patients in the rapid response group who never need a biologic is of great interest, as we always want to treat patients early with the medications they need, but we also want to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Twilt said. It’s important to find out what differentiates those patients and whether it is possible to predict which patients do not need biologics early on, she said.

Dr. Ong said the research team is working to develop machine learning methods to improve risk stratification in hopes of addressing that question.

Dr. Ong and Dr. Twilt reported no disclosures. The research was funded by CARRA and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 16, 2024 // An earlier version of this article stated incorrect percentages of patients who never received any biologics during the study's 3-year period but improved rapidly or moderately.

Early initiation of biologics — within the first 2 months of symptom presentation — appears to have a significant impact on how rapidly patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) improve, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Our study provides evidence that early use of biologics can significantly alter the disease trajectory of patients with JIA,” Mei-Sing Ong, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, told attendees. At the same time, however, not all patients who improved rapidly during a 3-year follow-up period needed biologics, a finding that Ong said the researchers are continuing to investigate.

Marinka Twilt, MD, MScE, PhD, chair of CARRA’s JIA Research Committee and a pediatric rheumatologist and clinician scientist at Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, Canada, was not involved in the research but said the continued sustained remission in patients who improved rapidly is very reassuring.

Dr. Twilt

“We always wonder if initial response will be sustained or if patients tend to flare after the initial treatment,” Dr. Twilt told this news organization. “To see the sustained response up to 3 years is fantastic.” She added that it would be enlightening to see more information about patients who rapidly improved over 3 years, including whether they were still taking a [conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)] and/or biologic.

“A new diagnosis can be overwhelming for families, and this sometimes leads to step-up therapy to not overwhelm them more with information on new drugs,” Dr. Twilt said. “This study shows that an earlier start is beneficial, and this should be discussed with families early on so there is less delay in early treatment.”

Canada and many US states currently require 3 months of conventional DMARD treatment before patients can start a biologic, Dr. Twilt said, yet “this study shows the additive benefit of using a biologic within 2 months of starting a DMARD, which hopefully will lead to insurance companies adopting this threshold.”

The STOP-JIA study is a prospective observational study that compares the effectiveness of three different treatment plans for JIA. A Step-Up cohort of 257 patients received conventional antirheumatic monotherapy initially, with a biologic added at 3 months or later as needed. The Early Combination cohort of 100 patients received conventional antirheumatic therapy with a biologic from the start. The Biologic First cohort of 43 patients began taking a biologic as a first-line therapy.

In previously reported results of the study at 12 months’ follow-up, there was no significant difference between the Step-Up and Biologic First groups, but there were significant differences between the Step-Up and Early Combination groups. Significantly more patients in the Early Combination group (58.8%) than in the Step-Up group (42.8%) had inactive disease, based on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 (cJADAS-10) (P = .03). Similarly, 81% of Early Combination patients achieved the American College of Rheumatology 70% improvement criteria, compared with 62% of the Step-Up patients (P = .01).

To learn whether the timing of starting a biologic influenced the disease trajectory over time, the researchers compared subgroups of patients with similar trajectories.

“Assessing treatment outcomes at a single point in time does not give us a complete picture of the effects of treatment on disease trajectory, which is an important outcome given that JIA is characterized by a relapsing-remitting course,” Dr. Ong told attendees.

Patients were sorted in the slow, moderate, or rapid improvement trajectories. In previously reported data at 12 months’ follow-up, patients’ odds of achieving rapid improvement were 3.6 times greater if they had started a biologic within 3 months.

This study compared patients’ trajectories over 3 years in the 259 patients (65% of the original cohort) who had at least one cJADAS-10 assessment in each year of follow-up. Most patients (66.8%) were in the rapid improvement class, with 25.9% in the moderate improvement class and 7.3% in the slow improvement class.

Patients in the rapid improvement group achieved inactive disease (cJADAS-10 of 2.5 or less) within 1 year and maintained inactive disease through the second and third years. The moderate and low improvement groups both had higher disease activity at baseline, but the moderate group continued to improve in years 2 and 3, with minimal disease by year 3, on the basis of the cJADAS-10 scores of 2.5-5. The slow group continued to experience moderate disease activity during years 2 and 3.

The findings also revealed that the earlier patients began a biologic, the more likely they were to be in the rapid improvement group than the slow improvement group. Participants who started a biologic in the first month had more than five times greater odds of being in the rapid improvement group than in the slow improvement group (odds ratio [OR], 5.33; P = .017).

Those who started a biologic in the second month were also more likely to be in the rapid improvement group (OR, 2.67; P = .032). For those who began a biologic by the third month, the odds of improving rapidly were not statistically significant, though Ong noted that could have been because of the small sample size. There was also no significant difference between those who improved moderately vs slowly based on when a biologic was initiated.

It would be helpful to learn whether any of the patients in the rapid improvement group were able to stop medications or whether they all continued treatment during the 3 years of follow-up, Dr. Twilt said. “Does early treatment with biologics not only lead to early remission after initiation but also to the possibility of stopping treatment earlier and remaining in remission?” she asked.

The researchers also found that not all patients needed biologics to end up in the rapid improvement group. Among patients who never received any biologics during the 3-year period, 83% improved rapidly and 17% improved moderately. Yet the researchers identified no significant differences in demographics or clinical factors between patients who received biologics and those who did not.

“The fact that there is a group of patients in the rapid response group who never need a biologic is of great interest, as we always want to treat patients early with the medications they need, but we also want to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Twilt said. It’s important to find out what differentiates those patients and whether it is possible to predict which patients do not need biologics early on, she said.

Dr. Ong said the research team is working to develop machine learning methods to improve risk stratification in hopes of addressing that question.

Dr. Ong and Dr. Twilt reported no disclosures. The research was funded by CARRA and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 16, 2024 // An earlier version of this article stated incorrect percentages of patients who never received any biologics during the study's 3-year period but improved rapidly or moderately.

Early initiation of biologics — within the first 2 months of symptom presentation — appears to have a significant impact on how rapidly patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) improve, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Our study provides evidence that early use of biologics can significantly alter the disease trajectory of patients with JIA,” Mei-Sing Ong, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, told attendees. At the same time, however, not all patients who improved rapidly during a 3-year follow-up period needed biologics, a finding that Ong said the researchers are continuing to investigate.

Marinka Twilt, MD, MScE, PhD, chair of CARRA’s JIA Research Committee and a pediatric rheumatologist and clinician scientist at Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, Canada, was not involved in the research but said the continued sustained remission in patients who improved rapidly is very reassuring.

Dr. Twilt

“We always wonder if initial response will be sustained or if patients tend to flare after the initial treatment,” Dr. Twilt told this news organization. “To see the sustained response up to 3 years is fantastic.” She added that it would be enlightening to see more information about patients who rapidly improved over 3 years, including whether they were still taking a [conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)] and/or biologic.

“A new diagnosis can be overwhelming for families, and this sometimes leads to step-up therapy to not overwhelm them more with information on new drugs,” Dr. Twilt said. “This study shows that an earlier start is beneficial, and this should be discussed with families early on so there is less delay in early treatment.”

Canada and many US states currently require 3 months of conventional DMARD treatment before patients can start a biologic, Dr. Twilt said, yet “this study shows the additive benefit of using a biologic within 2 months of starting a DMARD, which hopefully will lead to insurance companies adopting this threshold.”

The STOP-JIA study is a prospective observational study that compares the effectiveness of three different treatment plans for JIA. A Step-Up cohort of 257 patients received conventional antirheumatic monotherapy initially, with a biologic added at 3 months or later as needed. The Early Combination cohort of 100 patients received conventional antirheumatic therapy with a biologic from the start. The Biologic First cohort of 43 patients began taking a biologic as a first-line therapy.

In previously reported results of the study at 12 months’ follow-up, there was no significant difference between the Step-Up and Biologic First groups, but there were significant differences between the Step-Up and Early Combination groups. Significantly more patients in the Early Combination group (58.8%) than in the Step-Up group (42.8%) had inactive disease, based on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 (cJADAS-10) (P = .03). Similarly, 81% of Early Combination patients achieved the American College of Rheumatology 70% improvement criteria, compared with 62% of the Step-Up patients (P = .01).

To learn whether the timing of starting a biologic influenced the disease trajectory over time, the researchers compared subgroups of patients with similar trajectories.

“Assessing treatment outcomes at a single point in time does not give us a complete picture of the effects of treatment on disease trajectory, which is an important outcome given that JIA is characterized by a relapsing-remitting course,” Dr. Ong told attendees.

Patients were sorted in the slow, moderate, or rapid improvement trajectories. In previously reported data at 12 months’ follow-up, patients’ odds of achieving rapid improvement were 3.6 times greater if they had started a biologic within 3 months.

This study compared patients’ trajectories over 3 years in the 259 patients (65% of the original cohort) who had at least one cJADAS-10 assessment in each year of follow-up. Most patients (66.8%) were in the rapid improvement class, with 25.9% in the moderate improvement class and 7.3% in the slow improvement class.

Patients in the rapid improvement group achieved inactive disease (cJADAS-10 of 2.5 or less) within 1 year and maintained inactive disease through the second and third years. The moderate and low improvement groups both had higher disease activity at baseline, but the moderate group continued to improve in years 2 and 3, with minimal disease by year 3, on the basis of the cJADAS-10 scores of 2.5-5. The slow group continued to experience moderate disease activity during years 2 and 3.

The findings also revealed that the earlier patients began a biologic, the more likely they were to be in the rapid improvement group than the slow improvement group. Participants who started a biologic in the first month had more than five times greater odds of being in the rapid improvement group than in the slow improvement group (odds ratio [OR], 5.33; P = .017).

Those who started a biologic in the second month were also more likely to be in the rapid improvement group (OR, 2.67; P = .032). For those who began a biologic by the third month, the odds of improving rapidly were not statistically significant, though Ong noted that could have been because of the small sample size. There was also no significant difference between those who improved moderately vs slowly based on when a biologic was initiated.

It would be helpful to learn whether any of the patients in the rapid improvement group were able to stop medications or whether they all continued treatment during the 3 years of follow-up, Dr. Twilt said. “Does early treatment with biologics not only lead to early remission after initiation but also to the possibility of stopping treatment earlier and remaining in remission?” she asked.

The researchers also found that not all patients needed biologics to end up in the rapid improvement group. Among patients who never received any biologics during the 3-year period, 83% improved rapidly and 17% improved moderately. Yet the researchers identified no significant differences in demographics or clinical factors between patients who received biologics and those who did not.

“The fact that there is a group of patients in the rapid response group who never need a biologic is of great interest, as we always want to treat patients early with the medications they need, but we also want to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Twilt said. It’s important to find out what differentiates those patients and whether it is possible to predict which patients do not need biologics early on, she said.

Dr. Ong said the research team is working to develop machine learning methods to improve risk stratification in hopes of addressing that question.

Dr. Ong and Dr. Twilt reported no disclosures. The research was funded by CARRA and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

After PsA onset, early diagnosis and management leads to better long-term outcomes. These prior observations were confirmed in a study by Snoeck Henkemans and colleagues that included 708 newly diagnosed patients with PsA naive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) who were followed up for 3 years or more. Patients with a short (<12 weeks) vs long delay (>1 year) in PsA diagnosis after symptom onset were more likely to achieve minimum disease activity (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.37-4.76). Thus, longer delay in diagnosing PsA is associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Bimekizumab is a novel biologic therapy that inhibits interleukins (IL)-17A and -17F and is efficacious in the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and axial spondyloarthritis. However, the effectiveness in PsA vis-à-vis other IL-17A inhibitors is not known. In the absence of a formal head-to-head study, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons is a method to evaluate comparative effectiveness. Such a study by Mease and colleagues included the data of patients with PsA who were biological DMARD–naive or who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR), and who received bimekizumab from the BE OPTIMAL (n = 236) and BE COMPLETE (n = 146) trials and secukinumab from the FUTURE 2 trial (n = 200). They demonstrated that, in the biological DMARD–naive subgroup, the probability of achieving at least 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response was two times higher with bimekizumab (160 mg every 4 weeks) vs secukinumab (150 mg or 300 mg every 4 weeks) at week 52. In the TNFi-IR subgroup, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared with 150 mg secukinumab for ACR20, ACR70, and minimal disease activity outcomes and a greater likelihood of response compared with 300 mg secukinumab for ACR50 and minimal disease activity. Thus, bimekizumab is at least as effective as secukinumab in PsA. Formal head-to-head studies comparing bimekizumab with other IL-17A inhibitors are required.

Distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint involvement is an important manifestation of PsA and is closely related to nail dystrophy in the adjacent nail. Ixekizumab is another biologic that targets IL-17A. In a post hoc analysis of the SPIRIT-H2H study, McGonagle and colleagues confirmed that over 96% of patients with PsA and simultaneous DIP joint involvement reported adjacent nail psoriasis. When compared with adalimumab, ixekizumab led to greater improvements in DIP involvement and adjacent nail psoriasis as early as week 12 (38.8% vs 28.4%; P < .0001), with improvements sustained up to week 52 (64.9% vs 57.5%; P = .0055). This probably reflects a greater effectiveness of IL-17A inhibition in treating skin and nail psoriasis compared with TNFi.

Finally, in a population-based retrospective cohort study that included 13,905 patients with PsA (n = 1672) or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 12,233) who did not have any previous history of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), Meng and colleagues showed that the incidence rates of MACE were similar in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, cardiovascular risk management should be similarly aggressive in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis.

After PsA onset, early diagnosis and management leads to better long-term outcomes. These prior observations were confirmed in a study by Snoeck Henkemans and colleagues that included 708 newly diagnosed patients with PsA naive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) who were followed up for 3 years or more. Patients with a short (<12 weeks) vs long delay (>1 year) in PsA diagnosis after symptom onset were more likely to achieve minimum disease activity (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.37-4.76). Thus, longer delay in diagnosing PsA is associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Bimekizumab is a novel biologic therapy that inhibits interleukins (IL)-17A and -17F and is efficacious in the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and axial spondyloarthritis. However, the effectiveness in PsA vis-à-vis other IL-17A inhibitors is not known. In the absence of a formal head-to-head study, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons is a method to evaluate comparative effectiveness. Such a study by Mease and colleagues included the data of patients with PsA who were biological DMARD–naive or who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR), and who received bimekizumab from the BE OPTIMAL (n = 236) and BE COMPLETE (n = 146) trials and secukinumab from the FUTURE 2 trial (n = 200). They demonstrated that, in the biological DMARD–naive subgroup, the probability of achieving at least 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response was two times higher with bimekizumab (160 mg every 4 weeks) vs secukinumab (150 mg or 300 mg every 4 weeks) at week 52. In the TNFi-IR subgroup, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared with 150 mg secukinumab for ACR20, ACR70, and minimal disease activity outcomes and a greater likelihood of response compared with 300 mg secukinumab for ACR50 and minimal disease activity. Thus, bimekizumab is at least as effective as secukinumab in PsA. Formal head-to-head studies comparing bimekizumab with other IL-17A inhibitors are required.

Distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint involvement is an important manifestation of PsA and is closely related to nail dystrophy in the adjacent nail. Ixekizumab is another biologic that targets IL-17A. In a post hoc analysis of the SPIRIT-H2H study, McGonagle and colleagues confirmed that over 96% of patients with PsA and simultaneous DIP joint involvement reported adjacent nail psoriasis. When compared with adalimumab, ixekizumab led to greater improvements in DIP involvement and adjacent nail psoriasis as early as week 12 (38.8% vs 28.4%; P < .0001), with improvements sustained up to week 52 (64.9% vs 57.5%; P = .0055). This probably reflects a greater effectiveness of IL-17A inhibition in treating skin and nail psoriasis compared with TNFi.

Finally, in a population-based retrospective cohort study that included 13,905 patients with PsA (n = 1672) or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 12,233) who did not have any previous history of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), Meng and colleagues showed that the incidence rates of MACE were similar in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, cardiovascular risk management should be similarly aggressive in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis.

After PsA onset, early diagnosis and management leads to better long-term outcomes. These prior observations were confirmed in a study by Snoeck Henkemans and colleagues that included 708 newly diagnosed patients with PsA naive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) who were followed up for 3 years or more. Patients with a short (<12 weeks) vs long delay (>1 year) in PsA diagnosis after symptom onset were more likely to achieve minimum disease activity (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.37-4.76). Thus, longer delay in diagnosing PsA is associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Bimekizumab is a novel biologic therapy that inhibits interleukins (IL)-17A and -17F and is efficacious in the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and axial spondyloarthritis. However, the effectiveness in PsA vis-à-vis other IL-17A inhibitors is not known. In the absence of a formal head-to-head study, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons is a method to evaluate comparative effectiveness. Such a study by Mease and colleagues included the data of patients with PsA who were biological DMARD–naive or who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR), and who received bimekizumab from the BE OPTIMAL (n = 236) and BE COMPLETE (n = 146) trials and secukinumab from the FUTURE 2 trial (n = 200). They demonstrated that, in the biological DMARD–naive subgroup, the probability of achieving at least 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response was two times higher with bimekizumab (160 mg every 4 weeks) vs secukinumab (150 mg or 300 mg every 4 weeks) at week 52. In the TNFi-IR subgroup, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared with 150 mg secukinumab for ACR20, ACR70, and minimal disease activity outcomes and a greater likelihood of response compared with 300 mg secukinumab for ACR50 and minimal disease activity. Thus, bimekizumab is at least as effective as secukinumab in PsA. Formal head-to-head studies comparing bimekizumab with other IL-17A inhibitors are required.

Distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint involvement is an important manifestation of PsA and is closely related to nail dystrophy in the adjacent nail. Ixekizumab is another biologic that targets IL-17A. In a post hoc analysis of the SPIRIT-H2H study, McGonagle and colleagues confirmed that over 96% of patients with PsA and simultaneous DIP joint involvement reported adjacent nail psoriasis. When compared with adalimumab, ixekizumab led to greater improvements in DIP involvement and adjacent nail psoriasis as early as week 12 (38.8% vs 28.4%; P < .0001), with improvements sustained up to week 52 (64.9% vs 57.5%; P = .0055). This probably reflects a greater effectiveness of IL-17A inhibition in treating skin and nail psoriasis compared with TNFi.

Finally, in a population-based retrospective cohort study that included 13,905 patients with PsA (n = 1672) or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 12,233) who did not have any previous history of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), Meng and colleagues showed that the incidence rates of MACE were similar in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, cardiovascular risk management should be similarly aggressive in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotatercept (Winrevair, Merck), for the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), World Health Organization (WHO) Group 1, to increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, and reduce the risk for clinical worsening events.

Sotatercept, which had breakthrough therapy designation, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor that works by improving the balance between pro- and antiproliferative signaling to regulate the vascular cell proliferation that underlies PAH.

“Sotatercept added to background therapy has the potential to become a new standard-of-care option for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension,” added coinvestigator Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Pulmonary Heart Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The approval was based on results of the phase 3 STELLAR study, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial in which, 323 patients with PAH (WHO Group 1, functional class II or III) were randomly assigned 1:1 to add sotatercept or placebo to stable background therapy.

The results showed that sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved average 6-minute walk distance from baseline by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters compared with placebo for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001).

Sotatercept also led to significant improvement in multiple secondary outcome measures, including:

• Reduction in the risk for death from any cause or PAH clinical worsening events by 84% vs background therapy alone (number of events: 9 vs 42; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; P < .001) 
• Improvement in FC from baseline at 24 weeks in 29% of patients compared with 14% of patients treated with placebo (P < .001) 
• Improvement in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), with an average 235 dyn/sec/cm⁵ reduction in PVR from baseline (P < .001) 
• Improvement from baseline in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The median treatment difference in NT-proBNP between sotatercept and placebo was -442 pg/mL (P < .001) 

The results were reported last year at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, with simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Sotatercept injection may be administered by patients or caregivers with guidance, training, and follow-up from a healthcare provider. The recommended starting dose is 0.3 mg/kg. The recommended target dose is 0.7 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Sotatercept may increase hemoglobin, may lead to erythrocytosis, and may decrease platelet count and lead to severe thrombocytopenia. Treatment should not be initiated if platelet count is < 50,000/mm³. 

Hemoglobin and platelets should be monitored before each dose of sotatercept for the first five doses, or longer if values are unstable, and periodically thereafter to determine if dose adjustments are required. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

Merck estimates that sotatercept will be available for dispensing by select specialty pharmacies in the United States by the end of April 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotatercept (Winrevair, Merck), for the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), World Health Organization (WHO) Group 1, to increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, and reduce the risk for clinical worsening events.

Sotatercept, which had breakthrough therapy designation, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor that works by improving the balance between pro- and antiproliferative signaling to regulate the vascular cell proliferation that underlies PAH.

“Sotatercept added to background therapy has the potential to become a new standard-of-care option for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension,” added coinvestigator Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Pulmonary Heart Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The approval was based on results of the phase 3 STELLAR study, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial in which, 323 patients with PAH (WHO Group 1, functional class II or III) were randomly assigned 1:1 to add sotatercept or placebo to stable background therapy.

The results showed that sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved average 6-minute walk distance from baseline by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters compared with placebo for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001).

Sotatercept also led to significant improvement in multiple secondary outcome measures, including:

• Reduction in the risk for death from any cause or PAH clinical worsening events by 84% vs background therapy alone (number of events: 9 vs 42; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; P < .001) 
• Improvement in FC from baseline at 24 weeks in 29% of patients compared with 14% of patients treated with placebo (P < .001) 
• Improvement in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), with an average 235 dyn/sec/cm⁵ reduction in PVR from baseline (P < .001) 
• Improvement from baseline in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The median treatment difference in NT-proBNP between sotatercept and placebo was -442 pg/mL (P < .001) 

The results were reported last year at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, with simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Sotatercept injection may be administered by patients or caregivers with guidance, training, and follow-up from a healthcare provider. The recommended starting dose is 0.3 mg/kg. The recommended target dose is 0.7 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Sotatercept may increase hemoglobin, may lead to erythrocytosis, and may decrease platelet count and lead to severe thrombocytopenia. Treatment should not be initiated if platelet count is < 50,000/mm³. 

Hemoglobin and platelets should be monitored before each dose of sotatercept for the first five doses, or longer if values are unstable, and periodically thereafter to determine if dose adjustments are required. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

Merck estimates that sotatercept will be available for dispensing by select specialty pharmacies in the United States by the end of April 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotatercept (Winrevair, Merck), for the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), World Health Organization (WHO) Group 1, to increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, and reduce the risk for clinical worsening events.

Sotatercept, which had breakthrough therapy designation, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor that works by improving the balance between pro- and antiproliferative signaling to regulate the vascular cell proliferation that underlies PAH.

“Sotatercept added to background therapy has the potential to become a new standard-of-care option for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension,” added coinvestigator Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Pulmonary Heart Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The approval was based on results of the phase 3 STELLAR study, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial in which, 323 patients with PAH (WHO Group 1, functional class II or III) were randomly assigned 1:1 to add sotatercept or placebo to stable background therapy.

The results showed that sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved average 6-minute walk distance from baseline by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters compared with placebo for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001).

Sotatercept also led to significant improvement in multiple secondary outcome measures, including:

• Reduction in the risk for death from any cause or PAH clinical worsening events by 84% vs background therapy alone (number of events: 9 vs 42; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; P < .001) 
• Improvement in FC from baseline at 24 weeks in 29% of patients compared with 14% of patients treated with placebo (P < .001) 
• Improvement in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), with an average 235 dyn/sec/cm⁵ reduction in PVR from baseline (P < .001) 
• Improvement from baseline in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The median treatment difference in NT-proBNP between sotatercept and placebo was -442 pg/mL (P < .001) 

The results were reported last year at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, with simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Sotatercept injection may be administered by patients or caregivers with guidance, training, and follow-up from a healthcare provider. The recommended starting dose is 0.3 mg/kg. The recommended target dose is 0.7 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Sotatercept may increase hemoglobin, may lead to erythrocytosis, and may decrease platelet count and lead to severe thrombocytopenia. Treatment should not be initiated if platelet count is < 50,000/mm³. 

Hemoglobin and platelets should be monitored before each dose of sotatercept for the first five doses, or longer if values are unstable, and periodically thereafter to determine if dose adjustments are required. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

Merck estimates that sotatercept will be available for dispensing by select specialty pharmacies in the United States by the end of April 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting an exercise regimen with others can be a powerful fitness motivator, and new research spotlights the strategy’s particular importance for older adults.

In a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open, older adults who talked with peers about their exercise program were able to increase and sustain physical activity levels much better than those who focused on self-motivation and setting fitness goals.

Such self-focused — or “intrapersonal” — strategies tend to be more common in health and fitness than interactive, or “interpersonal,” ones, the study authors noted. Yet, research on their effectiveness is limited. Historically, intrapersonal strategies have been studied as part of a bundle of behavioral change strategies — a common limitation in research — making it difficult to discern their individual value.

“We’re not saying that intrapersonal strategies should not be used,” said study author Siobhan McMahon, PhD, associate professor and codirector of the Center on Aging Science and Care at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, “but this study shows that interpersonal strategies are really important.”

Low physical activity among older adults is linked with “disability, difficulty managing chronic conditions, and increased falls and related injuries,” the authors wrote. Exercise can be the antidote, yet fewer than 16% of older adults meet the recommended guidelines (150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity and two muscle-strengthening sessions per week).

The study builds on previous research that suggests interpersonal strategies could help change that by encouraging more older adults to move.
 

Intrapersonal vs Interpersonal Behavior Change Strategies

More than 300 participants aged 70 years and older who did not meet physical activity guidelines were given a wearable fitness tracker and an exercise program and randomly split into four groups:

• One using intrapersonal behavior change strategies
• Another using interpersonal strategies
• A group combining both intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies
• A control group that received neither intervention

For 8 weeks, all participants exercised in meet-ups and discussed their progress in their groups. Afterward, they were left to their own devices and monitored for the remainder of the year.

“The intrapersonal strategies group involved personal reflection,” said Dr. McMahon. They set personal goals (increasing daily step count or exercise repetitions) and developed action plans for implementing physical activity into their daily routines.

“The interpersonal group involved more peer-to-peer conversation, collaborative learning, and sharing,” said Dr. McMahon. Participants talked among themselves about how they could sustain doing the prescribed exercises at home. “Through those conversations, they learned and experimented,” Dr. McMahon said. They problem-solved, determining what barriers might stop them from exercising and brainstorming ways around them.

The researchers evaluated the participants after 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months. The interpersonal group exhibited significant increases in physical activity — including light, moderate, and vigorous activity — for the entire year. They increased their average physical activity per day by 21-28 minutes and their daily step count by 776-1058.

The intrapersonal group, meanwhile, exhibited no significant changes in total physical activity. (The third experimental group, the intrapersonal plus interpersonal condition, had results similar to the interpersonal one.)

The results echoed the findings of a similar study Dr. McMahon conducted in 2017. “We followed people over a longer period of time in this [new] study,” she said, “12 months instead of 6 months. This is important in physical activity studies because a lot of evidence shows that after 6 months, people’s activity drops off.”
 

How Socializing Promotes Exercise Compliance

Research on the effectiveness of exercise in social groups dates back as far as the 19th century. It’s called the social facilitation theory: The idea that people will make an increased effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.

“Norman Triplett was a scientist who studied indoor cyclists, and he came up with the social facilitation theory in 1898,” said Robert Linkul, CSCS*D, who sits on the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s board of directors and specializes in exercise for older adults. “He noticed that during relays, the first cyclist would get slower as he fatigued, but as soon as his teammate came out, his last lap would be faster than his previous two laps. People try harder when there’s some other person present. They tend to feel pressure to perform because they don’t want to look bad.”

Dr. McMahon said the exact psychology of why socializing supports exercise isn’t clear yet but noted that talking to other people builds relationships and makes one feel connected to and involved with a community.

“I think connections between peers are really important,” said Dr. McMahon. “It goes beyond just being in the same room and doing the exercises together. It’s taking a little bit of time to talk about it. To acknowledge what they’re doing and their progress. To encourage each other and provide support.”

Some of the study participants even became friends and continued to meet on their own time over the course of the trial.

“They stayed in touch,” said Dr. McMahon. “One thing that people talked about after the study, even if they weren’t friends, was that the conversations within the meetings made them feel kind of a fellowship that helped them learn about themselves or people like them.”
 

Help Patients Find Their Own Fellowship of Active People

• Communicate the importance of exercise. During appointments, ask how the patient is doing with their exercise and listen for any obstacles to compliance, Dr. McMahon said.
• See if they have access to fitness classes. Many community-dwelling older adults do, Mr. Linkul said. If not, consider local or state agencies on aging — “in Minnesota, we have a program, Juniper,” Dr. McMahon said, that maintains a list of physical activity programs — or AARP’s free online group classes, or Silver Sneakers (free for those with eligible Medicare Advantage plans).
• Reach out to local qualified fitness professionals. Trainers with the Training the Older Adult certification (founded by Mr. Linkul) can be found here. Other qualified trainers can be found through the Functional Aging Institute, American Council on Exercise, and National Academy of Sports Medicine, Mr. Linkul said. “Many of these trainers will offer semiprivate sessions,” said Mr. Linkul, “which is usually four to eight people.” Groups of this size often facilitate better participation than larger classes. “You get more personalized attention from the instructor along with an environment that allows social engagement,” said Mr. Linkul. If you have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, you might consider reaching out to them. Some physical therapists lead activity groups, though reimbursement challenges mean they aren’t common, Dr. McMahon said.
• Prescribe short walks with a friend, family member, or neighbor. Have the person start with 30 minutes of walking or rucking (walking with a weighted backpack) most days, Mr. Linkul suggested, a recommendation that is echoed by the American College of Sports Medicine.
• Encourage patients to talk about their exercise. Even for those who prefer to exercise solo, “our studies suggest it might be helpful to have conversations with others about movement, and motivations for movement,” Dr. McMahon said. They can simply mention one idea, question, or observation related to physical activity during casual catchups or chats.
• Recommend resistance training. That goes for patients with preexisting health conditions too, Mr. Linkul said. Physicians “find out a patient has low bone mineral density, and they’ll often tell them not to pick up anything heavy because they’ll hurt themselves — and that’s the exact wrong answer,” Mr. Linkul said. A total of 32% of the participants in the JAMA Network study had cardiovascular disease, nearly 34% had osteoporosis, 70% had arthritis, and more than 20% were living with diabetes.
• Expect pushback. Encouraging older adults to exercise is hard because many are resistant to it, Mr. Linkul acknowledged. Do it anyway. Some will listen and that makes the effort worthwhile. “I try to provide as much information as I can about what happens to aging bodies if they don’t train,” said Mr. Linkul. “These people are more likely to fall, they’ll die earlier, and have a poorer quality of life. But when they start exercising, they feel better immediately.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting an exercise regimen with others can be a powerful fitness motivator, and new research spotlights the strategy’s particular importance for older adults.

In a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open, older adults who talked with peers about their exercise program were able to increase and sustain physical activity levels much better than those who focused on self-motivation and setting fitness goals.

Such self-focused — or “intrapersonal” — strategies tend to be more common in health and fitness than interactive, or “interpersonal,” ones, the study authors noted. Yet, research on their effectiveness is limited. Historically, intrapersonal strategies have been studied as part of a bundle of behavioral change strategies — a common limitation in research — making it difficult to discern their individual value.

“We’re not saying that intrapersonal strategies should not be used,” said study author Siobhan McMahon, PhD, associate professor and codirector of the Center on Aging Science and Care at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, “but this study shows that interpersonal strategies are really important.”

Low physical activity among older adults is linked with “disability, difficulty managing chronic conditions, and increased falls and related injuries,” the authors wrote. Exercise can be the antidote, yet fewer than 16% of older adults meet the recommended guidelines (150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity and two muscle-strengthening sessions per week).

The study builds on previous research that suggests interpersonal strategies could help change that by encouraging more older adults to move.
 

Intrapersonal vs Interpersonal Behavior Change Strategies

More than 300 participants aged 70 years and older who did not meet physical activity guidelines were given a wearable fitness tracker and an exercise program and randomly split into four groups:

• One using intrapersonal behavior change strategies
• Another using interpersonal strategies
• A group combining both intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies
• A control group that received neither intervention

For 8 weeks, all participants exercised in meet-ups and discussed their progress in their groups. Afterward, they were left to their own devices and monitored for the remainder of the year.

“The intrapersonal strategies group involved personal reflection,” said Dr. McMahon. They set personal goals (increasing daily step count or exercise repetitions) and developed action plans for implementing physical activity into their daily routines.

“The interpersonal group involved more peer-to-peer conversation, collaborative learning, and sharing,” said Dr. McMahon. Participants talked among themselves about how they could sustain doing the prescribed exercises at home. “Through those conversations, they learned and experimented,” Dr. McMahon said. They problem-solved, determining what barriers might stop them from exercising and brainstorming ways around them.

The researchers evaluated the participants after 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months. The interpersonal group exhibited significant increases in physical activity — including light, moderate, and vigorous activity — for the entire year. They increased their average physical activity per day by 21-28 minutes and their daily step count by 776-1058.

The intrapersonal group, meanwhile, exhibited no significant changes in total physical activity. (The third experimental group, the intrapersonal plus interpersonal condition, had results similar to the interpersonal one.)

The results echoed the findings of a similar study Dr. McMahon conducted in 2017. “We followed people over a longer period of time in this [new] study,” she said, “12 months instead of 6 months. This is important in physical activity studies because a lot of evidence shows that after 6 months, people’s activity drops off.”
 

How Socializing Promotes Exercise Compliance

Research on the effectiveness of exercise in social groups dates back as far as the 19th century. It’s called the social facilitation theory: The idea that people will make an increased effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.

“Norman Triplett was a scientist who studied indoor cyclists, and he came up with the social facilitation theory in 1898,” said Robert Linkul, CSCS*D, who sits on the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s board of directors and specializes in exercise for older adults. “He noticed that during relays, the first cyclist would get slower as he fatigued, but as soon as his teammate came out, his last lap would be faster than his previous two laps. People try harder when there’s some other person present. They tend to feel pressure to perform because they don’t want to look bad.”

Dr. McMahon said the exact psychology of why socializing supports exercise isn’t clear yet but noted that talking to other people builds relationships and makes one feel connected to and involved with a community.

“I think connections between peers are really important,” said Dr. McMahon. “It goes beyond just being in the same room and doing the exercises together. It’s taking a little bit of time to talk about it. To acknowledge what they’re doing and their progress. To encourage each other and provide support.”

Some of the study participants even became friends and continued to meet on their own time over the course of the trial.

“They stayed in touch,” said Dr. McMahon. “One thing that people talked about after the study, even if they weren’t friends, was that the conversations within the meetings made them feel kind of a fellowship that helped them learn about themselves or people like them.”
 

Help Patients Find Their Own Fellowship of Active People

• Communicate the importance of exercise. During appointments, ask how the patient is doing with their exercise and listen for any obstacles to compliance, Dr. McMahon said.
• See if they have access to fitness classes. Many community-dwelling older adults do, Mr. Linkul said. If not, consider local or state agencies on aging — “in Minnesota, we have a program, Juniper,” Dr. McMahon said, that maintains a list of physical activity programs — or AARP’s free online group classes, or Silver Sneakers (free for those with eligible Medicare Advantage plans).
• Reach out to local qualified fitness professionals. Trainers with the Training the Older Adult certification (founded by Mr. Linkul) can be found here. Other qualified trainers can be found through the Functional Aging Institute, American Council on Exercise, and National Academy of Sports Medicine, Mr. Linkul said. “Many of these trainers will offer semiprivate sessions,” said Mr. Linkul, “which is usually four to eight people.” Groups of this size often facilitate better participation than larger classes. “You get more personalized attention from the instructor along with an environment that allows social engagement,” said Mr. Linkul. If you have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, you might consider reaching out to them. Some physical therapists lead activity groups, though reimbursement challenges mean they aren’t common, Dr. McMahon said.
• Prescribe short walks with a friend, family member, or neighbor. Have the person start with 30 minutes of walking or rucking (walking with a weighted backpack) most days, Mr. Linkul suggested, a recommendation that is echoed by the American College of Sports Medicine.
• Encourage patients to talk about their exercise. Even for those who prefer to exercise solo, “our studies suggest it might be helpful to have conversations with others about movement, and motivations for movement,” Dr. McMahon said. They can simply mention one idea, question, or observation related to physical activity during casual catchups or chats.
• Recommend resistance training. That goes for patients with preexisting health conditions too, Mr. Linkul said. Physicians “find out a patient has low bone mineral density, and they’ll often tell them not to pick up anything heavy because they’ll hurt themselves — and that’s the exact wrong answer,” Mr. Linkul said. A total of 32% of the participants in the JAMA Network study had cardiovascular disease, nearly 34% had osteoporosis, 70% had arthritis, and more than 20% were living with diabetes.
• Expect pushback. Encouraging older adults to exercise is hard because many are resistant to it, Mr. Linkul acknowledged. Do it anyway. Some will listen and that makes the effort worthwhile. “I try to provide as much information as I can about what happens to aging bodies if they don’t train,” said Mr. Linkul. “These people are more likely to fall, they’ll die earlier, and have a poorer quality of life. But when they start exercising, they feel better immediately.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting an exercise regimen with others can be a powerful fitness motivator, and new research spotlights the strategy’s particular importance for older adults.

In a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open, older adults who talked with peers about their exercise program were able to increase and sustain physical activity levels much better than those who focused on self-motivation and setting fitness goals.

Such self-focused — or “intrapersonal” — strategies tend to be more common in health and fitness than interactive, or “interpersonal,” ones, the study authors noted. Yet, research on their effectiveness is limited. Historically, intrapersonal strategies have been studied as part of a bundle of behavioral change strategies — a common limitation in research — making it difficult to discern their individual value.

“We’re not saying that intrapersonal strategies should not be used,” said study author Siobhan McMahon, PhD, associate professor and codirector of the Center on Aging Science and Care at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, “but this study shows that interpersonal strategies are really important.”

Low physical activity among older adults is linked with “disability, difficulty managing chronic conditions, and increased falls and related injuries,” the authors wrote. Exercise can be the antidote, yet fewer than 16% of older adults meet the recommended guidelines (150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity and two muscle-strengthening sessions per week).

The study builds on previous research that suggests interpersonal strategies could help change that by encouraging more older adults to move.
 

Intrapersonal vs Interpersonal Behavior Change Strategies

More than 300 participants aged 70 years and older who did not meet physical activity guidelines were given a wearable fitness tracker and an exercise program and randomly split into four groups:

• One using intrapersonal behavior change strategies
• Another using interpersonal strategies
• A group combining both intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies
• A control group that received neither intervention

For 8 weeks, all participants exercised in meet-ups and discussed their progress in their groups. Afterward, they were left to their own devices and monitored for the remainder of the year.

“The intrapersonal strategies group involved personal reflection,” said Dr. McMahon. They set personal goals (increasing daily step count or exercise repetitions) and developed action plans for implementing physical activity into their daily routines.

“The interpersonal group involved more peer-to-peer conversation, collaborative learning, and sharing,” said Dr. McMahon. Participants talked among themselves about how they could sustain doing the prescribed exercises at home. “Through those conversations, they learned and experimented,” Dr. McMahon said. They problem-solved, determining what barriers might stop them from exercising and brainstorming ways around them.

The researchers evaluated the participants after 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months. The interpersonal group exhibited significant increases in physical activity — including light, moderate, and vigorous activity — for the entire year. They increased their average physical activity per day by 21-28 minutes and their daily step count by 776-1058.

The intrapersonal group, meanwhile, exhibited no significant changes in total physical activity. (The third experimental group, the intrapersonal plus interpersonal condition, had results similar to the interpersonal one.)

The results echoed the findings of a similar study Dr. McMahon conducted in 2017. “We followed people over a longer period of time in this [new] study,” she said, “12 months instead of 6 months. This is important in physical activity studies because a lot of evidence shows that after 6 months, people’s activity drops off.”
 

How Socializing Promotes Exercise Compliance

Research on the effectiveness of exercise in social groups dates back as far as the 19th century. It’s called the social facilitation theory: The idea that people will make an increased effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.

“Norman Triplett was a scientist who studied indoor cyclists, and he came up with the social facilitation theory in 1898,” said Robert Linkul, CSCS*D, who sits on the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s board of directors and specializes in exercise for older adults. “He noticed that during relays, the first cyclist would get slower as he fatigued, but as soon as his teammate came out, his last lap would be faster than his previous two laps. People try harder when there’s some other person present. They tend to feel pressure to perform because they don’t want to look bad.”

Dr. McMahon said the exact psychology of why socializing supports exercise isn’t clear yet but noted that talking to other people builds relationships and makes one feel connected to and involved with a community.

“I think connections between peers are really important,” said Dr. McMahon. “It goes beyond just being in the same room and doing the exercises together. It’s taking a little bit of time to talk about it. To acknowledge what they’re doing and their progress. To encourage each other and provide support.”

Some of the study participants even became friends and continued to meet on their own time over the course of the trial.

“They stayed in touch,” said Dr. McMahon. “One thing that people talked about after the study, even if they weren’t friends, was that the conversations within the meetings made them feel kind of a fellowship that helped them learn about themselves or people like them.”
 

Help Patients Find Their Own Fellowship of Active People

• Communicate the importance of exercise. During appointments, ask how the patient is doing with their exercise and listen for any obstacles to compliance, Dr. McMahon said.
• See if they have access to fitness classes. Many community-dwelling older adults do, Mr. Linkul said. If not, consider local or state agencies on aging — “in Minnesota, we have a program, Juniper,” Dr. McMahon said, that maintains a list of physical activity programs — or AARP’s free online group classes, or Silver Sneakers (free for those with eligible Medicare Advantage plans).
• Reach out to local qualified fitness professionals. Trainers with the Training the Older Adult certification (founded by Mr. Linkul) can be found here. Other qualified trainers can be found through the Functional Aging Institute, American Council on Exercise, and National Academy of Sports Medicine, Mr. Linkul said. “Many of these trainers will offer semiprivate sessions,” said Mr. Linkul, “which is usually four to eight people.” Groups of this size often facilitate better participation than larger classes. “You get more personalized attention from the instructor along with an environment that allows social engagement,” said Mr. Linkul. If you have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, you might consider reaching out to them. Some physical therapists lead activity groups, though reimbursement challenges mean they aren’t common, Dr. McMahon said.
• Prescribe short walks with a friend, family member, or neighbor. Have the person start with 30 minutes of walking or rucking (walking with a weighted backpack) most days, Mr. Linkul suggested, a recommendation that is echoed by the American College of Sports Medicine.
• Encourage patients to talk about their exercise. Even for those who prefer to exercise solo, “our studies suggest it might be helpful to have conversations with others about movement, and motivations for movement,” Dr. McMahon said. They can simply mention one idea, question, or observation related to physical activity during casual catchups or chats.
• Recommend resistance training. That goes for patients with preexisting health conditions too, Mr. Linkul said. Physicians “find out a patient has low bone mineral density, and they’ll often tell them not to pick up anything heavy because they’ll hurt themselves — and that’s the exact wrong answer,” Mr. Linkul said. A total of 32% of the participants in the JAMA Network study had cardiovascular disease, nearly 34% had osteoporosis, 70% had arthritis, and more than 20% were living with diabetes.
• Expect pushback. Encouraging older adults to exercise is hard because many are resistant to it, Mr. Linkul acknowledged. Do it anyway. Some will listen and that makes the effort worthwhile. “I try to provide as much information as I can about what happens to aging bodies if they don’t train,” said Mr. Linkul. “These people are more likely to fall, they’ll die earlier, and have a poorer quality of life. But when they start exercising, they feel better immediately.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.