MDedge Rheumatology

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel

A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.

I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. As anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide knows, it is an unknowable, fatal disease. Very few of my patients know my story. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.

Kaiser Permanente

At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.

Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.

Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.

Courtesy Jeffrey Benabio, MD

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel

A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.

I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. As anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide knows, it is an unknowable, fatal disease. Very few of my patients know my story. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.

Kaiser Permanente

At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.

Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.

Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.

Courtesy Jeffrey Benabio, MD

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel

A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.

I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. As anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide knows, it is an unknowable, fatal disease. Very few of my patients know my story. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.

Kaiser Permanente

At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.

Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.

Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.

Courtesy Jeffrey Benabio, MD

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Obesity and diabetes increase the risk for complications following joint surgeries like total hip replacement, but can semaglutide and related drugs help?

The question has massive implications. More than 450,000 total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures are performed annually in the United States, with the number expected to grow to 850,000 by 2030. Obesity is the leading reason for the increase. Semaglutide and other glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists can lead to dramatic and rapid weight loss, in addition to controlling diabetes, so researchers have wondered if the medications might improve outcomes in patients undergoing joint surgery. 

Two studies presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) sought to answer the question — but reached different conclusions. 

One study of THA patients taking semaglutide found fewer 90-day readmissions for diabetes and fewer prosthetic joint infections at the 2-year mark. Another found similar outcomes on the need for revision surgery, infections, and many other postsurgery metrics in people who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist and those who did not. Neither study had outside funding.
 

Study: Fewer Infections, Readmissions

For their study, Matthew Magruder, MD, a third-year orthopedic resident at Maimonides Medical Center’s Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation in New York City, and his colleagues used an administrative claim database (PearlDiver) to identify THA patients who underwent the surgery between January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021, when semaglutide was approved for the treatment of diabetes but not yet for obesity. The researchers found 9465 patients who had had a primary THA, of whom 1653 had received a prescription for semaglutide.

In total, 84.9% of those on semaglutide had obesity, as did 85.2% of those not on the medication.

Dr. Magruder’s group looked at medical complications such as deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, hypoglycemia, and pulmonary embolism within 90 days of surgery, implant-related complications 2 years after the procedure, rates of readmission within 90 days of the procedure, length of stay in the hospital, and costs of care. 

They found that patients taking semaglutide were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 90 days of THA (6.2% vs 8.8%; P <.01) and experienced fewer joint infections (1.6% vs 2.9%; P <.01). No significant differences were found in the other outcomes.

Among the potential concerns involving the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients undergoing surgery are their potential to cause hypoglycemia and the risk for aspiration during anesthesia. But those issues did not emerge in the analysis.

“We concluded that this was preliminary evidence that using semaglutide at the time of surgery was safe and potentially effective at reducing complications,” said Dr. Magruder, whose team published their findings in The Journal of Arthroplasty.
 

Study: Semaglutide Has No Effect on Postop Complications

In another study presented at the AAOS meeting, researchers found that rates of complications after THA were similar in patients with obesity who took semaglutide and those who did not. That information could be helpful for clinicians who have been reluctant to perform THA procedures in patients who also have had bariatric surgery, said Daniel E. Pereira, MD, a resident at Washington University in St. Louis and the first author of the study.

A recent retrospective review found that patients who had bariatric surgery have worse implant survivorship and higher rates of dislocation than do those with a naturally low or high body mass index (BMI). 

Pereira and his colleagues used a national database, with deidentified patient records, originally finding 42,410 patients. After matching, they evaluated 616 in each cohort: those who took semaglutide and those who did not. The average age was 62.7 years; average BMI was 35.5. 

Both groups had a similar risk for a range of complications including revision surgery, infection of the new joint and surgical site, opioid-related disorders, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and mortality. 

“We didn’t observe anything significant [between groups] in terms of the complications,” said David Momtaz, MPH, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, who helped conduct the research. 

Dr. Pereira said he hoped the results would end the hesitation he observes, partly due to a lack of research, among some physicians about prescribing semaglutide before THA in appropriate patients. “Our preliminary evidence suggests there is no need to withhold THA in patients who successfully lost weight on semaglutide,” he said.
 

Expert Perspective: Not Unexpected

Peter Hanson, MD, an orthopedic surgeon and orthopedic medical director at Sharp Grossmont Hospital in La Mesa, California, who specializes in hip and knee replacement, said he was unsurprised by the findings. 

The patients he has observed on GLP-1 receptor agonists lose weight, he said, and a few even to the point of not needing a replacement. A recent study found that every 1% decrease in weight was associated with a 2% reduced risk for knee replacement in those with knee osteoarthritis or at risk for it, and every 1% drop in weight was associated with a 3% reduced risk for THA.

“I always advise my overweight patient to lose at least 30 pounds, even if their BMI is less than 40, like many in these studies,” Dr. Hanson said. If a patient’s doctor prescribes semaglutide or another GLP-1 receptor agonist, “I am very supportive, and we postpone surgery until the weight loss is maximized,” he added.

Drs. Magruder, Pereira, Momtaz, and Hanson have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity and diabetes increase the risk for complications following joint surgeries like total hip replacement, but can semaglutide and related drugs help?

The question has massive implications. More than 450,000 total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures are performed annually in the United States, with the number expected to grow to 850,000 by 2030. Obesity is the leading reason for the increase. Semaglutide and other glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists can lead to dramatic and rapid weight loss, in addition to controlling diabetes, so researchers have wondered if the medications might improve outcomes in patients undergoing joint surgery. 

Two studies presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) sought to answer the question — but reached different conclusions. 

One study of THA patients taking semaglutide found fewer 90-day readmissions for diabetes and fewer prosthetic joint infections at the 2-year mark. Another found similar outcomes on the need for revision surgery, infections, and many other postsurgery metrics in people who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist and those who did not. Neither study had outside funding.
 

Study: Fewer Infections, Readmissions

For their study, Matthew Magruder, MD, a third-year orthopedic resident at Maimonides Medical Center’s Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation in New York City, and his colleagues used an administrative claim database (PearlDiver) to identify THA patients who underwent the surgery between January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021, when semaglutide was approved for the treatment of diabetes but not yet for obesity. The researchers found 9465 patients who had had a primary THA, of whom 1653 had received a prescription for semaglutide.

In total, 84.9% of those on semaglutide had obesity, as did 85.2% of those not on the medication.

Dr. Magruder’s group looked at medical complications such as deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, hypoglycemia, and pulmonary embolism within 90 days of surgery, implant-related complications 2 years after the procedure, rates of readmission within 90 days of the procedure, length of stay in the hospital, and costs of care. 

They found that patients taking semaglutide were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 90 days of THA (6.2% vs 8.8%; P <.01) and experienced fewer joint infections (1.6% vs 2.9%; P <.01). No significant differences were found in the other outcomes.

Among the potential concerns involving the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients undergoing surgery are their potential to cause hypoglycemia and the risk for aspiration during anesthesia. But those issues did not emerge in the analysis.

“We concluded that this was preliminary evidence that using semaglutide at the time of surgery was safe and potentially effective at reducing complications,” said Dr. Magruder, whose team published their findings in The Journal of Arthroplasty.
 

Study: Semaglutide Has No Effect on Postop Complications

In another study presented at the AAOS meeting, researchers found that rates of complications after THA were similar in patients with obesity who took semaglutide and those who did not. That information could be helpful for clinicians who have been reluctant to perform THA procedures in patients who also have had bariatric surgery, said Daniel E. Pereira, MD, a resident at Washington University in St. Louis and the first author of the study.

A recent retrospective review found that patients who had bariatric surgery have worse implant survivorship and higher rates of dislocation than do those with a naturally low or high body mass index (BMI). 

Pereira and his colleagues used a national database, with deidentified patient records, originally finding 42,410 patients. After matching, they evaluated 616 in each cohort: those who took semaglutide and those who did not. The average age was 62.7 years; average BMI was 35.5. 

Both groups had a similar risk for a range of complications including revision surgery, infection of the new joint and surgical site, opioid-related disorders, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and mortality. 

“We didn’t observe anything significant [between groups] in terms of the complications,” said David Momtaz, MPH, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, who helped conduct the research. 

Dr. Pereira said he hoped the results would end the hesitation he observes, partly due to a lack of research, among some physicians about prescribing semaglutide before THA in appropriate patients. “Our preliminary evidence suggests there is no need to withhold THA in patients who successfully lost weight on semaglutide,” he said.
 

Expert Perspective: Not Unexpected

Peter Hanson, MD, an orthopedic surgeon and orthopedic medical director at Sharp Grossmont Hospital in La Mesa, California, who specializes in hip and knee replacement, said he was unsurprised by the findings. 

The patients he has observed on GLP-1 receptor agonists lose weight, he said, and a few even to the point of not needing a replacement. A recent study found that every 1% decrease in weight was associated with a 2% reduced risk for knee replacement in those with knee osteoarthritis or at risk for it, and every 1% drop in weight was associated with a 3% reduced risk for THA.

“I always advise my overweight patient to lose at least 30 pounds, even if their BMI is less than 40, like many in these studies,” Dr. Hanson said. If a patient’s doctor prescribes semaglutide or another GLP-1 receptor agonist, “I am very supportive, and we postpone surgery until the weight loss is maximized,” he added.

Drs. Magruder, Pereira, Momtaz, and Hanson have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity and diabetes increase the risk for complications following joint surgeries like total hip replacement, but can semaglutide and related drugs help?

The question has massive implications. More than 450,000 total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures are performed annually in the United States, with the number expected to grow to 850,000 by 2030. Obesity is the leading reason for the increase. Semaglutide and other glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists can lead to dramatic and rapid weight loss, in addition to controlling diabetes, so researchers have wondered if the medications might improve outcomes in patients undergoing joint surgery. 

Two studies presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) sought to answer the question — but reached different conclusions. 

One study of THA patients taking semaglutide found fewer 90-day readmissions for diabetes and fewer prosthetic joint infections at the 2-year mark. Another found similar outcomes on the need for revision surgery, infections, and many other postsurgery metrics in people who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist and those who did not. Neither study had outside funding.
 

Study: Fewer Infections, Readmissions

For their study, Matthew Magruder, MD, a third-year orthopedic resident at Maimonides Medical Center’s Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation in New York City, and his colleagues used an administrative claim database (PearlDiver) to identify THA patients who underwent the surgery between January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021, when semaglutide was approved for the treatment of diabetes but not yet for obesity. The researchers found 9465 patients who had had a primary THA, of whom 1653 had received a prescription for semaglutide.

In total, 84.9% of those on semaglutide had obesity, as did 85.2% of those not on the medication.

Dr. Magruder’s group looked at medical complications such as deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, hypoglycemia, and pulmonary embolism within 90 days of surgery, implant-related complications 2 years after the procedure, rates of readmission within 90 days of the procedure, length of stay in the hospital, and costs of care. 

They found that patients taking semaglutide were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 90 days of THA (6.2% vs 8.8%; P <.01) and experienced fewer joint infections (1.6% vs 2.9%; P <.01). No significant differences were found in the other outcomes.

Among the potential concerns involving the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients undergoing surgery are their potential to cause hypoglycemia and the risk for aspiration during anesthesia. But those issues did not emerge in the analysis.

“We concluded that this was preliminary evidence that using semaglutide at the time of surgery was safe and potentially effective at reducing complications,” said Dr. Magruder, whose team published their findings in The Journal of Arthroplasty.
 

Study: Semaglutide Has No Effect on Postop Complications

In another study presented at the AAOS meeting, researchers found that rates of complications after THA were similar in patients with obesity who took semaglutide and those who did not. That information could be helpful for clinicians who have been reluctant to perform THA procedures in patients who also have had bariatric surgery, said Daniel E. Pereira, MD, a resident at Washington University in St. Louis and the first author of the study.

A recent retrospective review found that patients who had bariatric surgery have worse implant survivorship and higher rates of dislocation than do those with a naturally low or high body mass index (BMI). 

Pereira and his colleagues used a national database, with deidentified patient records, originally finding 42,410 patients. After matching, they evaluated 616 in each cohort: those who took semaglutide and those who did not. The average age was 62.7 years; average BMI was 35.5. 

Both groups had a similar risk for a range of complications including revision surgery, infection of the new joint and surgical site, opioid-related disorders, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and mortality. 

“We didn’t observe anything significant [between groups] in terms of the complications,” said David Momtaz, MPH, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, who helped conduct the research. 

Dr. Pereira said he hoped the results would end the hesitation he observes, partly due to a lack of research, among some physicians about prescribing semaglutide before THA in appropriate patients. “Our preliminary evidence suggests there is no need to withhold THA in patients who successfully lost weight on semaglutide,” he said.
 

Expert Perspective: Not Unexpected

Peter Hanson, MD, an orthopedic surgeon and orthopedic medical director at Sharp Grossmont Hospital in La Mesa, California, who specializes in hip and knee replacement, said he was unsurprised by the findings. 

The patients he has observed on GLP-1 receptor agonists lose weight, he said, and a few even to the point of not needing a replacement. A recent study found that every 1% decrease in weight was associated with a 2% reduced risk for knee replacement in those with knee osteoarthritis or at risk for it, and every 1% drop in weight was associated with a 3% reduced risk for THA.

“I always advise my overweight patient to lose at least 30 pounds, even if their BMI is less than 40, like many in these studies,” Dr. Hanson said. If a patient’s doctor prescribes semaglutide or another GLP-1 receptor agonist, “I am very supportive, and we postpone surgery until the weight loss is maximized,” he added.

Drs. Magruder, Pereira, Momtaz, and Hanson have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s no secret that regular exercise is important. But for patients with painful joints, it can be the last thing they want to do. Exercise is one of the cornerstones of managing arthritis, yet nearly one third of patients with arthritis are inactive.

Guidelines recommend that clinicians encourage their patients to engage in physical activity, but it can be difficult to know where to start.

This news organization recently spoke to experts on what resources are available, how much exercise is ideal, and how to motivate patients to move more.
 

What Are the Benefits of Exercise in Osteoarthritis?

Nearly all professional societies agree that exercise is one of the hallmarks of managing osteoarthritis (OA). According to two Cochrane reviews, there is high-equality evidence that exercise can help reduce pain as well as improve physical function in both hip and knee OA. In fact, physical activity can decrease pain and improve function by 40% in adults with arthritis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Exercise also plays a large role in preventing disability by improving joint range of motion as well as maintaining muscle mass that supports joints.

There is also preliminary evidence that exercise could have a structural benefit to osteoarthritic joints. In a study of about 1200 individuals with knee OA, those who walked for exercise not only had reduced frequent knee pain, compared with non-walkers, but also were 20% less likely to have worsening of medial joint space narrowing.

Beyond symptom and impairment improvements, exercise can also play a role in staving off other chronic diseases linked to OA, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Physical activity and exercise “are effective in preventing at least 35 chronic conditions and treating at least 26 chronic conditions, with one of the potential working mechanisms being exercise-induced anti-inflammatory effects,” wrote the authors of a commentary in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.

The known mental health benefits of exercise can also be beneficial for patients, as rates of depression and anxiety can be higher in people with arthritis than in the general population.
 

What Is the Ideal Amount of Exercise for Patients?

Current guidelines recommend that adults should get 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week. But for patients with chronic pain, that may seem unachievable, Kelli Allen, PhD, professor of medicine and exercise physiologist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, said during a presentation at the American College of Rheumatology 2023 annual meeting in San Diego. Promisingly, research has shown that some exercise is better than none.

One study looking at over 1500 adults with lower extremity joint symptoms suggested that approximately 1 hour of physical activity per week increased the likelihood that participants remained disability-free over 4 years. In another analysis looking at 280 studies, researchers concluded that resistance training programs lasting 3-6 months resulted in moderate improvements in pain and physical function, but these benefits did not depend on exercise volume or participant adherence.

“These findings highlight the flexibility available for clinicians in the prescription of resistance exercise for knee and hip OA without compromising improvements in pain and physical function,” the authors wrote.

Step counts can be another way to measure activity, with 10,000 steps being a common target. But fewer steps a day can also yield health benefits. One study found that among nearly 1800 participants with knee OA, each additional 1000 steps per day was associated with a 16%-18% reduced risk of developing functional limitations 2 years later. Walking 6000 steps a day was the threshold that best determined who would develop functional limitations and who would not.

“I think it’s really a helpful message to encourage people with chronic pain that if you can get to 6000, maybe that’s a good goal,” Dr. Allen said.

Going for a 20-minute walk three times a week can be a good place to start, said Grace H. Lo, MD, associate professor in the Division of Immunology, Allergy, and Rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. For people who currently do not do any activity, Dr. Lo recommends starting small, like walking to get the mail every day. “Do something practical that is something they can sustain and keep in their daily activities that will help to increase their function and hopefully lessen some of their symptoms.”
 

Are Certain Types of Exercise More Beneficial?

There is no specific type of exercise that is best for OA, so it comes down to patient preference. The best exercise is “whatever somebody is actually going to do,” Dr. Allen noted.

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the Division of Rheumatic Disease at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and rheumatologist at the North Texas VA Health Care System in Dallas, Texas, said that her practice focuses on a combination of aerobic activity, functional balance, and strength training, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

“It’s not clear to me that one type of exercise is better than another; it’s more about what does this patient enjoy, and how can we make this a routine, so it is a sustainable behavior,” she told this news organization.

Generally, lower-impact exercises like biking, walking, or swimming tend to be better for OA, Dr. Lo added. Several studies have also shown tai chi to be beneficial in patients with OA, she said. More recently, Dr. Lo has conducted research on gardening as an exercise intervention for OA.

“It’s a great way to encourage people to exercise,” she said in an interview. “Besides the fact that they’re physically active, they can also be outside. There are a lot of mental health benefits to doing gardening as well.”

Dr. Allen added that certain exercises should be considered on the basis of an individual’s goals and physical needs. If someone has balance issues, for example, then yoga or tai chi could be useful to add to their exercise program, she said.
 

What Resources Are Available?

The Osteoarthritis Action Alliance has a list of 23 evidence-based exercise programs that have been shown to improve arthritis symptoms. These arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions vary from instructor-led, in-person sessions to self-directed programs.

Walk with Ease (or Camine Con Gusto in Spanish) is one popular program, noted Dr. Allen. The program can be in-person or self-directed, with a required booklet that costs $11.95. However, there are discounted books for community-based organizations. The My Knee Exercise program, created by the University of Melbourne, Australia, provides a free, self-directed, 6-month strengthening program. The availability and cost of other programs are dependent on the format and location, the guide noted.

But understanding what programs are available in certain communities takes time, which can be a barrier to clinician referrals, noted Katie Huffman, director of education and outreach at OA Action Alliance.

“We would love to see these programs being covered by payers and health plans so that there’s incentive for providers to refer and patients to participate in the programs,” she noted.

While some states do cover a limited number of programs under Medicaid, coverage across states and payers is not yet universal.

In addition to these programs, the alliance has a simple guide to help plan workouts based on current activity level. The guide links to free exercises from CreakyJoints, an online community for people with arthritis, and the Arthritis Foundation.

Dr. Lo noted that the Veterans Affairs program, “VA Whole Health,” has free resources that are available to anyone. The provided videos offer tai chi, chair exercises, and guided meditations.

“It’s thoughtful to people who have some limitations in their physical activity,” she said.

Because the program is online, it could be difficult to access for those who are not comfortable with electronics, she said, “but if you can find a way to pass that, I think that this is an amazing resource,” she said.
 

How Do You Motivate Patients to Move?

“When it comes to motivation, I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all approach,” said Dr. Makris. She tries to identify what matters most for each patient as a starting point. “When they can identify something in their day-to-day life that they value, then I like to link a physical activity-based goal to that,” she said. Setting physical activity goals using the mnemonic SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely) can be useful, she advised.

The OA Action Alliance also provides additional tools for clinicians on how to counsel patients on behavior change.

Understanding the patient’s lifestyle is also crucial when discussing physical activity, Dr. Lo added. “You have to give them practical solutions that they can actually incorporate into their lives,” she said.

Discussions around physical activity should be an ongoing part of clinic visits, both Dr. Lo and Dr. Makris agreed, to celebrate achievements and revise goals.

“I’m kind of notorious for being really slow in clinic because I just let people talk,” Dr. Lo said. “I do feel like these extra moments, when you spend time talking about these things, allow your recommendations to be more customized for the patients” and make the biggest impact.

Dr. Allen, Dr. Lo, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s no secret that regular exercise is important. But for patients with painful joints, it can be the last thing they want to do. Exercise is one of the cornerstones of managing arthritis, yet nearly one third of patients with arthritis are inactive.

Guidelines recommend that clinicians encourage their patients to engage in physical activity, but it can be difficult to know where to start.

This news organization recently spoke to experts on what resources are available, how much exercise is ideal, and how to motivate patients to move more.
 

What Are the Benefits of Exercise in Osteoarthritis?

Nearly all professional societies agree that exercise is one of the hallmarks of managing osteoarthritis (OA). According to two Cochrane reviews, there is high-equality evidence that exercise can help reduce pain as well as improve physical function in both hip and knee OA. In fact, physical activity can decrease pain and improve function by 40% in adults with arthritis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Exercise also plays a large role in preventing disability by improving joint range of motion as well as maintaining muscle mass that supports joints.

There is also preliminary evidence that exercise could have a structural benefit to osteoarthritic joints. In a study of about 1200 individuals with knee OA, those who walked for exercise not only had reduced frequent knee pain, compared with non-walkers, but also were 20% less likely to have worsening of medial joint space narrowing.

Beyond symptom and impairment improvements, exercise can also play a role in staving off other chronic diseases linked to OA, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Physical activity and exercise “are effective in preventing at least 35 chronic conditions and treating at least 26 chronic conditions, with one of the potential working mechanisms being exercise-induced anti-inflammatory effects,” wrote the authors of a commentary in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.

The known mental health benefits of exercise can also be beneficial for patients, as rates of depression and anxiety can be higher in people with arthritis than in the general population.
 

What Is the Ideal Amount of Exercise for Patients?

Current guidelines recommend that adults should get 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week. But for patients with chronic pain, that may seem unachievable, Kelli Allen, PhD, professor of medicine and exercise physiologist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, said during a presentation at the American College of Rheumatology 2023 annual meeting in San Diego. Promisingly, research has shown that some exercise is better than none.

One study looking at over 1500 adults with lower extremity joint symptoms suggested that approximately 1 hour of physical activity per week increased the likelihood that participants remained disability-free over 4 years. In another analysis looking at 280 studies, researchers concluded that resistance training programs lasting 3-6 months resulted in moderate improvements in pain and physical function, but these benefits did not depend on exercise volume or participant adherence.

“These findings highlight the flexibility available for clinicians in the prescription of resistance exercise for knee and hip OA without compromising improvements in pain and physical function,” the authors wrote.

Step counts can be another way to measure activity, with 10,000 steps being a common target. But fewer steps a day can also yield health benefits. One study found that among nearly 1800 participants with knee OA, each additional 1000 steps per day was associated with a 16%-18% reduced risk of developing functional limitations 2 years later. Walking 6000 steps a day was the threshold that best determined who would develop functional limitations and who would not.

“I think it’s really a helpful message to encourage people with chronic pain that if you can get to 6000, maybe that’s a good goal,” Dr. Allen said.

Going for a 20-minute walk three times a week can be a good place to start, said Grace H. Lo, MD, associate professor in the Division of Immunology, Allergy, and Rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. For people who currently do not do any activity, Dr. Lo recommends starting small, like walking to get the mail every day. “Do something practical that is something they can sustain and keep in their daily activities that will help to increase their function and hopefully lessen some of their symptoms.”
 

Are Certain Types of Exercise More Beneficial?

There is no specific type of exercise that is best for OA, so it comes down to patient preference. The best exercise is “whatever somebody is actually going to do,” Dr. Allen noted.

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the Division of Rheumatic Disease at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and rheumatologist at the North Texas VA Health Care System in Dallas, Texas, said that her practice focuses on a combination of aerobic activity, functional balance, and strength training, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

“It’s not clear to me that one type of exercise is better than another; it’s more about what does this patient enjoy, and how can we make this a routine, so it is a sustainable behavior,” she told this news organization.

Generally, lower-impact exercises like biking, walking, or swimming tend to be better for OA, Dr. Lo added. Several studies have also shown tai chi to be beneficial in patients with OA, she said. More recently, Dr. Lo has conducted research on gardening as an exercise intervention for OA.

“It’s a great way to encourage people to exercise,” she said in an interview. “Besides the fact that they’re physically active, they can also be outside. There are a lot of mental health benefits to doing gardening as well.”

Dr. Allen added that certain exercises should be considered on the basis of an individual’s goals and physical needs. If someone has balance issues, for example, then yoga or tai chi could be useful to add to their exercise program, she said.
 

What Resources Are Available?

The Osteoarthritis Action Alliance has a list of 23 evidence-based exercise programs that have been shown to improve arthritis symptoms. These arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions vary from instructor-led, in-person sessions to self-directed programs.

Walk with Ease (or Camine Con Gusto in Spanish) is one popular program, noted Dr. Allen. The program can be in-person or self-directed, with a required booklet that costs $11.95. However, there are discounted books for community-based organizations. The My Knee Exercise program, created by the University of Melbourne, Australia, provides a free, self-directed, 6-month strengthening program. The availability and cost of other programs are dependent on the format and location, the guide noted.

But understanding what programs are available in certain communities takes time, which can be a barrier to clinician referrals, noted Katie Huffman, director of education and outreach at OA Action Alliance.

“We would love to see these programs being covered by payers and health plans so that there’s incentive for providers to refer and patients to participate in the programs,” she noted.

While some states do cover a limited number of programs under Medicaid, coverage across states and payers is not yet universal.

In addition to these programs, the alliance has a simple guide to help plan workouts based on current activity level. The guide links to free exercises from CreakyJoints, an online community for people with arthritis, and the Arthritis Foundation.

Dr. Lo noted that the Veterans Affairs program, “VA Whole Health,” has free resources that are available to anyone. The provided videos offer tai chi, chair exercises, and guided meditations.

“It’s thoughtful to people who have some limitations in their physical activity,” she said.

Because the program is online, it could be difficult to access for those who are not comfortable with electronics, she said, “but if you can find a way to pass that, I think that this is an amazing resource,” she said.
 

How Do You Motivate Patients to Move?

“When it comes to motivation, I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all approach,” said Dr. Makris. She tries to identify what matters most for each patient as a starting point. “When they can identify something in their day-to-day life that they value, then I like to link a physical activity-based goal to that,” she said. Setting physical activity goals using the mnemonic SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely) can be useful, she advised.

The OA Action Alliance also provides additional tools for clinicians on how to counsel patients on behavior change.

Understanding the patient’s lifestyle is also crucial when discussing physical activity, Dr. Lo added. “You have to give them practical solutions that they can actually incorporate into their lives,” she said.

Discussions around physical activity should be an ongoing part of clinic visits, both Dr. Lo and Dr. Makris agreed, to celebrate achievements and revise goals.

“I’m kind of notorious for being really slow in clinic because I just let people talk,” Dr. Lo said. “I do feel like these extra moments, when you spend time talking about these things, allow your recommendations to be more customized for the patients” and make the biggest impact.

Dr. Allen, Dr. Lo, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s no secret that regular exercise is important. But for patients with painful joints, it can be the last thing they want to do. Exercise is one of the cornerstones of managing arthritis, yet nearly one third of patients with arthritis are inactive.

Guidelines recommend that clinicians encourage their patients to engage in physical activity, but it can be difficult to know where to start.

This news organization recently spoke to experts on what resources are available, how much exercise is ideal, and how to motivate patients to move more.
 

What Are the Benefits of Exercise in Osteoarthritis?

Nearly all professional societies agree that exercise is one of the hallmarks of managing osteoarthritis (OA). According to two Cochrane reviews, there is high-equality evidence that exercise can help reduce pain as well as improve physical function in both hip and knee OA. In fact, physical activity can decrease pain and improve function by 40% in adults with arthritis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Exercise also plays a large role in preventing disability by improving joint range of motion as well as maintaining muscle mass that supports joints.

There is also preliminary evidence that exercise could have a structural benefit to osteoarthritic joints. In a study of about 1200 individuals with knee OA, those who walked for exercise not only had reduced frequent knee pain, compared with non-walkers, but also were 20% less likely to have worsening of medial joint space narrowing.

Beyond symptom and impairment improvements, exercise can also play a role in staving off other chronic diseases linked to OA, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Physical activity and exercise “are effective in preventing at least 35 chronic conditions and treating at least 26 chronic conditions, with one of the potential working mechanisms being exercise-induced anti-inflammatory effects,” wrote the authors of a commentary in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.

The known mental health benefits of exercise can also be beneficial for patients, as rates of depression and anxiety can be higher in people with arthritis than in the general population.
 

What Is the Ideal Amount of Exercise for Patients?

Current guidelines recommend that adults should get 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week. But for patients with chronic pain, that may seem unachievable, Kelli Allen, PhD, professor of medicine and exercise physiologist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, said during a presentation at the American College of Rheumatology 2023 annual meeting in San Diego. Promisingly, research has shown that some exercise is better than none.

One study looking at over 1500 adults with lower extremity joint symptoms suggested that approximately 1 hour of physical activity per week increased the likelihood that participants remained disability-free over 4 years. In another analysis looking at 280 studies, researchers concluded that resistance training programs lasting 3-6 months resulted in moderate improvements in pain and physical function, but these benefits did not depend on exercise volume or participant adherence.

“These findings highlight the flexibility available for clinicians in the prescription of resistance exercise for knee and hip OA without compromising improvements in pain and physical function,” the authors wrote.

Step counts can be another way to measure activity, with 10,000 steps being a common target. But fewer steps a day can also yield health benefits. One study found that among nearly 1800 participants with knee OA, each additional 1000 steps per day was associated with a 16%-18% reduced risk of developing functional limitations 2 years later. Walking 6000 steps a day was the threshold that best determined who would develop functional limitations and who would not.

“I think it’s really a helpful message to encourage people with chronic pain that if you can get to 6000, maybe that’s a good goal,” Dr. Allen said.

Going for a 20-minute walk three times a week can be a good place to start, said Grace H. Lo, MD, associate professor in the Division of Immunology, Allergy, and Rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. For people who currently do not do any activity, Dr. Lo recommends starting small, like walking to get the mail every day. “Do something practical that is something they can sustain and keep in their daily activities that will help to increase their function and hopefully lessen some of their symptoms.”
 

Are Certain Types of Exercise More Beneficial?

There is no specific type of exercise that is best for OA, so it comes down to patient preference. The best exercise is “whatever somebody is actually going to do,” Dr. Allen noted.

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the Division of Rheumatic Disease at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and rheumatologist at the North Texas VA Health Care System in Dallas, Texas, said that her practice focuses on a combination of aerobic activity, functional balance, and strength training, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

“It’s not clear to me that one type of exercise is better than another; it’s more about what does this patient enjoy, and how can we make this a routine, so it is a sustainable behavior,” she told this news organization.

Generally, lower-impact exercises like biking, walking, or swimming tend to be better for OA, Dr. Lo added. Several studies have also shown tai chi to be beneficial in patients with OA, she said. More recently, Dr. Lo has conducted research on gardening as an exercise intervention for OA.

“It’s a great way to encourage people to exercise,” she said in an interview. “Besides the fact that they’re physically active, they can also be outside. There are a lot of mental health benefits to doing gardening as well.”

Dr. Allen added that certain exercises should be considered on the basis of an individual’s goals and physical needs. If someone has balance issues, for example, then yoga or tai chi could be useful to add to their exercise program, she said.
 

What Resources Are Available?

The Osteoarthritis Action Alliance has a list of 23 evidence-based exercise programs that have been shown to improve arthritis symptoms. These arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions vary from instructor-led, in-person sessions to self-directed programs.

Walk with Ease (or Camine Con Gusto in Spanish) is one popular program, noted Dr. Allen. The program can be in-person or self-directed, with a required booklet that costs $11.95. However, there are discounted books for community-based organizations. The My Knee Exercise program, created by the University of Melbourne, Australia, provides a free, self-directed, 6-month strengthening program. The availability and cost of other programs are dependent on the format and location, the guide noted.

But understanding what programs are available in certain communities takes time, which can be a barrier to clinician referrals, noted Katie Huffman, director of education and outreach at OA Action Alliance.

“We would love to see these programs being covered by payers and health plans so that there’s incentive for providers to refer and patients to participate in the programs,” she noted.

While some states do cover a limited number of programs under Medicaid, coverage across states and payers is not yet universal.

In addition to these programs, the alliance has a simple guide to help plan workouts based on current activity level. The guide links to free exercises from CreakyJoints, an online community for people with arthritis, and the Arthritis Foundation.

Dr. Lo noted that the Veterans Affairs program, “VA Whole Health,” has free resources that are available to anyone. The provided videos offer tai chi, chair exercises, and guided meditations.

“It’s thoughtful to people who have some limitations in their physical activity,” she said.

Because the program is online, it could be difficult to access for those who are not comfortable with electronics, she said, “but if you can find a way to pass that, I think that this is an amazing resource,” she said.
 

How Do You Motivate Patients to Move?

“When it comes to motivation, I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all approach,” said Dr. Makris. She tries to identify what matters most for each patient as a starting point. “When they can identify something in their day-to-day life that they value, then I like to link a physical activity-based goal to that,” she said. Setting physical activity goals using the mnemonic SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely) can be useful, she advised.

The OA Action Alliance also provides additional tools for clinicians on how to counsel patients on behavior change.

Understanding the patient’s lifestyle is also crucial when discussing physical activity, Dr. Lo added. “You have to give them practical solutions that they can actually incorporate into their lives,” she said.

Discussions around physical activity should be an ongoing part of clinic visits, both Dr. Lo and Dr. Makris agreed, to celebrate achievements and revise goals.

“I’m kind of notorious for being really slow in clinic because I just let people talk,” Dr. Lo said. “I do feel like these extra moments, when you spend time talking about these things, allow your recommendations to be more customized for the patients” and make the biggest impact.

Dr. Allen, Dr. Lo, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A universal cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction tool performs well in patients with and without atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), a new study showed, suggesting this model could facilitate transition from primary to secondary prevention by streamlining risk classification.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used different models to evaluate whether established CVD predictors, including age, sex, race, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, or smoking, are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure (HF), among 9138 patients, mean age 63.8 years, in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.
• Of these, 609 had ASCVD (history of MI, ischemic stroke, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease) and 8529 did not.
• They extended their exploration to other predictors available in clinical practice, including family history of premature ASCVD, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoprotein(a), triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B, as well as predictors of HF such as body mass index and heart rate and blood-based cardiac biomarkers.
• An external validation analysis included 5322 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).
• Over a median follow-up of 18.9 years, 3209 ARIC participants (35%) developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 21.3 for MACE, 12.6 for MI/stroke, and 13.8 for HF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of all candidate predictors, 10 variables (including established predictors and cardiac biomarkers) were included in the universal prediction model, which demonstrated good calibration in both those with ASCVD (hazard ratio [HR] C-statistic, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.650-0.735) and without ASCVD (HR C-statistic, 0.748; 95% CI, 0.726-0.770).
• As anticipated, the risk for MACE was generally lower in those with no prior ASCVD, but the 5-year risk in the highest quintile of predicted risk in those without ASCVD was higher than that in the lowest two quintiles of the ASCVD group.
• The universal risk prediction model was validated in the MESA community–based cohort; over a median follow-up of 13.7 years, 12% of participants with and without prior ASCVD developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 10.2 for MACE, 7.4 for MI/stroke, and 4.3 for HF.
• The results were generally similar when examining individual outcomes (MI/stroke and HF) and for both no ASCVD and ASCVD groups across demographic subgroups by age, sex, and race.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “support the importance of established predictors for classifying long-term CVD risk in both primary and secondary prevention settings,” the authors wrote, adding an advantage to this risk prediction approach could be to help providers and patients “further personalize secondary prevention.”

In an accompanying editorial, Pier Sergio Saba, MD, PhD, Clinical and Interventional Cardiology, Sassari University Hospital, Sassari, Italy, and others said the universal risk assessment approach “is conceptually promising” but noted patients with ASCVD represented only 7% of the study population, and this population was relatively young, potentially limiting the applicability of this risk model in older individuals. Before the risk model can be used in clinical settings, results need to be validated and given incorporation of cardiac biomarkers, “careful cost-benefit analyses may also be needed,” the editorial writers added.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Yejin Mok, PHD, MPH, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and colleagues. It was published online on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

LIMITATIONS:

The somewhat limited number of study participants with prior ASCVD precluded researchers from quantifying the prognostic impact of ASCVD subtypes (eg, history of MI vs stroke vs peripheral artery disease). The study didn’t have data on some predictors recognized in guidelines (eg, coronary artery calcium and left ventricular ejection fraction). The ARIC analysis included only Black and White participants, and although models were validated in MESA, which included Chinese and Hispanic adults, extrapolation of results to more racially/ethnically diverse populations should be done with care.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The MESA study was supported by the NHLBI and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A universal cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction tool performs well in patients with and without atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), a new study showed, suggesting this model could facilitate transition from primary to secondary prevention by streamlining risk classification.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used different models to evaluate whether established CVD predictors, including age, sex, race, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, or smoking, are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure (HF), among 9138 patients, mean age 63.8 years, in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.
• Of these, 609 had ASCVD (history of MI, ischemic stroke, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease) and 8529 did not.
• They extended their exploration to other predictors available in clinical practice, including family history of premature ASCVD, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoprotein(a), triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B, as well as predictors of HF such as body mass index and heart rate and blood-based cardiac biomarkers.
• An external validation analysis included 5322 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).
• Over a median follow-up of 18.9 years, 3209 ARIC participants (35%) developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 21.3 for MACE, 12.6 for MI/stroke, and 13.8 for HF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of all candidate predictors, 10 variables (including established predictors and cardiac biomarkers) were included in the universal prediction model, which demonstrated good calibration in both those with ASCVD (hazard ratio [HR] C-statistic, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.650-0.735) and without ASCVD (HR C-statistic, 0.748; 95% CI, 0.726-0.770).
• As anticipated, the risk for MACE was generally lower in those with no prior ASCVD, but the 5-year risk in the highest quintile of predicted risk in those without ASCVD was higher than that in the lowest two quintiles of the ASCVD group.
• The universal risk prediction model was validated in the MESA community–based cohort; over a median follow-up of 13.7 years, 12% of participants with and without prior ASCVD developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 10.2 for MACE, 7.4 for MI/stroke, and 4.3 for HF.
• The results were generally similar when examining individual outcomes (MI/stroke and HF) and for both no ASCVD and ASCVD groups across demographic subgroups by age, sex, and race.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “support the importance of established predictors for classifying long-term CVD risk in both primary and secondary prevention settings,” the authors wrote, adding an advantage to this risk prediction approach could be to help providers and patients “further personalize secondary prevention.”

In an accompanying editorial, Pier Sergio Saba, MD, PhD, Clinical and Interventional Cardiology, Sassari University Hospital, Sassari, Italy, and others said the universal risk assessment approach “is conceptually promising” but noted patients with ASCVD represented only 7% of the study population, and this population was relatively young, potentially limiting the applicability of this risk model in older individuals. Before the risk model can be used in clinical settings, results need to be validated and given incorporation of cardiac biomarkers, “careful cost-benefit analyses may also be needed,” the editorial writers added.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Yejin Mok, PHD, MPH, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and colleagues. It was published online on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

LIMITATIONS:

The somewhat limited number of study participants with prior ASCVD precluded researchers from quantifying the prognostic impact of ASCVD subtypes (eg, history of MI vs stroke vs peripheral artery disease). The study didn’t have data on some predictors recognized in guidelines (eg, coronary artery calcium and left ventricular ejection fraction). The ARIC analysis included only Black and White participants, and although models were validated in MESA, which included Chinese and Hispanic adults, extrapolation of results to more racially/ethnically diverse populations should be done with care.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The MESA study was supported by the NHLBI and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A universal cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction tool performs well in patients with and without atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), a new study showed, suggesting this model could facilitate transition from primary to secondary prevention by streamlining risk classification.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used different models to evaluate whether established CVD predictors, including age, sex, race, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, or smoking, are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure (HF), among 9138 patients, mean age 63.8 years, in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.
• Of these, 609 had ASCVD (history of MI, ischemic stroke, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease) and 8529 did not.
• They extended their exploration to other predictors available in clinical practice, including family history of premature ASCVD, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoprotein(a), triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B, as well as predictors of HF such as body mass index and heart rate and blood-based cardiac biomarkers.
• An external validation analysis included 5322 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).
• Over a median follow-up of 18.9 years, 3209 ARIC participants (35%) developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 21.3 for MACE, 12.6 for MI/stroke, and 13.8 for HF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of all candidate predictors, 10 variables (including established predictors and cardiac biomarkers) were included in the universal prediction model, which demonstrated good calibration in both those with ASCVD (hazard ratio [HR] C-statistic, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.650-0.735) and without ASCVD (HR C-statistic, 0.748; 95% CI, 0.726-0.770).
• As anticipated, the risk for MACE was generally lower in those with no prior ASCVD, but the 5-year risk in the highest quintile of predicted risk in those without ASCVD was higher than that in the lowest two quintiles of the ASCVD group.
• The universal risk prediction model was validated in the MESA community–based cohort; over a median follow-up of 13.7 years, 12% of participants with and without prior ASCVD developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 10.2 for MACE, 7.4 for MI/stroke, and 4.3 for HF.
• The results were generally similar when examining individual outcomes (MI/stroke and HF) and for both no ASCVD and ASCVD groups across demographic subgroups by age, sex, and race.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “support the importance of established predictors for classifying long-term CVD risk in both primary and secondary prevention settings,” the authors wrote, adding an advantage to this risk prediction approach could be to help providers and patients “further personalize secondary prevention.”

In an accompanying editorial, Pier Sergio Saba, MD, PhD, Clinical and Interventional Cardiology, Sassari University Hospital, Sassari, Italy, and others said the universal risk assessment approach “is conceptually promising” but noted patients with ASCVD represented only 7% of the study population, and this population was relatively young, potentially limiting the applicability of this risk model in older individuals. Before the risk model can be used in clinical settings, results need to be validated and given incorporation of cardiac biomarkers, “careful cost-benefit analyses may also be needed,” the editorial writers added.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Yejin Mok, PHD, MPH, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and colleagues. It was published online on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

LIMITATIONS:

The somewhat limited number of study participants with prior ASCVD precluded researchers from quantifying the prognostic impact of ASCVD subtypes (eg, history of MI vs stroke vs peripheral artery disease). The study didn’t have data on some predictors recognized in guidelines (eg, coronary artery calcium and left ventricular ejection fraction). The ARIC analysis included only Black and White participants, and although models were validated in MESA, which included Chinese and Hispanic adults, extrapolation of results to more racially/ethnically diverse populations should be done with care.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The MESA study was supported by the NHLBI and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Oral antibiotics may be a safe alternative to receiving prolonged intravenous (IV) antibiotics, according to a recent observational study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients receiving antibiotics through an IV line risk developing a secondary infection; antibiotics received orally are considered safer.
• Researchers analyzed observational data from 914 adults with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia who received care in four hospitals in Denmark between 2018 and 2021.
• The outcomes of patients who were switched to oral antibiotics within 4 days after a positive blood culture were compared with those who continued to receive IV antibiotics for at least 5 days after the blood culture; participants in both groups received antibiotics for 7-14 days.
• Researchers assessed mortality rates over a 90-day window and used a target trial emulation method to conduct the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14.3% of patients who received prolonged IV treatment died, compared with 6.9% in the oral antibiotics group.
• In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients who were switched to oral antibiotics had a 22% lower risk for death within 90 days of initiation of treatment (relative risk [RR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-1.10).
• In a per-protocol analysis, patients who switched to the oral route had a 1% lower odds of dying within 90 days (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70-1.40).
• Individuals who were switched to oral antibiotic treatment were younger than those who continued to receive antibiotics via the IV route (median age, 73 vs 76 years, respectively), had fewer comorbidities (four vs five), and were more likely to have community-acquired gram-negative bacteremia (89.4% vs 80.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that the mortality associated with early antibiotic stepdown treatment is comparable to that associated with receiving prolonged IV antibiotic treatment for individuals with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sandra Tingsgård, MD, of the Center of Research & Department of Infectious Diseases at Copenhagen University Hospital–Amager and Hvidovre in Denmark.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was based on data from electronic health records, so some factors may not have been recorded or considered. The researchers identified few cases of multidrug-resistant infections, and the findings may not apply to those cases. Complicated cases and people who were not stabilized by day 4 were excluded from the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures or sources of funding.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral antibiotics may be a safe alternative to receiving prolonged intravenous (IV) antibiotics, according to a recent observational study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients receiving antibiotics through an IV line risk developing a secondary infection; antibiotics received orally are considered safer.
• Researchers analyzed observational data from 914 adults with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia who received care in four hospitals in Denmark between 2018 and 2021.
• The outcomes of patients who were switched to oral antibiotics within 4 days after a positive blood culture were compared with those who continued to receive IV antibiotics for at least 5 days after the blood culture; participants in both groups received antibiotics for 7-14 days.
• Researchers assessed mortality rates over a 90-day window and used a target trial emulation method to conduct the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14.3% of patients who received prolonged IV treatment died, compared with 6.9% in the oral antibiotics group.
• In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients who were switched to oral antibiotics had a 22% lower risk for death within 90 days of initiation of treatment (relative risk [RR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-1.10).
• In a per-protocol analysis, patients who switched to the oral route had a 1% lower odds of dying within 90 days (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70-1.40).
• Individuals who were switched to oral antibiotic treatment were younger than those who continued to receive antibiotics via the IV route (median age, 73 vs 76 years, respectively), had fewer comorbidities (four vs five), and were more likely to have community-acquired gram-negative bacteremia (89.4% vs 80.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that the mortality associated with early antibiotic stepdown treatment is comparable to that associated with receiving prolonged IV antibiotic treatment for individuals with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sandra Tingsgård, MD, of the Center of Research & Department of Infectious Diseases at Copenhagen University Hospital–Amager and Hvidovre in Denmark.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was based on data from electronic health records, so some factors may not have been recorded or considered. The researchers identified few cases of multidrug-resistant infections, and the findings may not apply to those cases. Complicated cases and people who were not stabilized by day 4 were excluded from the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures or sources of funding.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral antibiotics may be a safe alternative to receiving prolonged intravenous (IV) antibiotics, according to a recent observational study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients receiving antibiotics through an IV line risk developing a secondary infection; antibiotics received orally are considered safer.
• Researchers analyzed observational data from 914 adults with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia who received care in four hospitals in Denmark between 2018 and 2021.
• The outcomes of patients who were switched to oral antibiotics within 4 days after a positive blood culture were compared with those who continued to receive IV antibiotics for at least 5 days after the blood culture; participants in both groups received antibiotics for 7-14 days.
• Researchers assessed mortality rates over a 90-day window and used a target trial emulation method to conduct the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14.3% of patients who received prolonged IV treatment died, compared with 6.9% in the oral antibiotics group.
• In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients who were switched to oral antibiotics had a 22% lower risk for death within 90 days of initiation of treatment (relative risk [RR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-1.10).
• In a per-protocol analysis, patients who switched to the oral route had a 1% lower odds of dying within 90 days (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70-1.40).
• Individuals who were switched to oral antibiotic treatment were younger than those who continued to receive antibiotics via the IV route (median age, 73 vs 76 years, respectively), had fewer comorbidities (four vs five), and were more likely to have community-acquired gram-negative bacteremia (89.4% vs 80.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that the mortality associated with early antibiotic stepdown treatment is comparable to that associated with receiving prolonged IV antibiotic treatment for individuals with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sandra Tingsgård, MD, of the Center of Research & Department of Infectious Diseases at Copenhagen University Hospital–Amager and Hvidovre in Denmark.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was based on data from electronic health records, so some factors may not have been recorded or considered. The researchers identified few cases of multidrug-resistant infections, and the findings may not apply to those cases. Complicated cases and people who were not stabilized by day 4 were excluded from the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures or sources of funding.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intravenous (IV) administration of the antiplatelet agent tirofiban for 72 hours was associated with a reduction in early neurologic deterioration compared with oral aspirin therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke, in the randomized TREND trial.

The results were presented at the International Stroke Conference 2024, held on February 7-9 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Lead author Zhao Wenbo, MD, Xuanwu Hospital, Beijing, China, noted that neurologic deterioration, characterized by a sudden onset and quick peak of neurologic deficits, is a common phenomenon in acute ischemic stroke and is strongly associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Ischemic stroke progression is the main cause of neurologic deterioration, especially during the first few days after onset, Dr. Wenbo said. Several clinical studies have found that intensive antiplatelet therapy may prevent early neurologic deterioration and improve functional outcomes, but administering oral antiplatelet agents can be difficult because of dysphagia, he reported.

The TREND trial was conducted to investigate whether IV tirofiban could prevent early neurologic deterioration without increasing the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage in acute ischemic stroke.

The study included 426 patients with acute ischemic stroke within 24 hours of symptom onset who had a neurologic deficit attributed to focal cerebral ischemia and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score between 4 and 20 points and who were not treated with thrombolysis or endovascular thrombectomy. Patients with cardioembolic stroke were also excluded.

Patients were a median of 10-12 hours from symptom onset and had a baseline NIHSS score of 5.

They were randomized to IV tirofiban or oral aspirin for 72 hours. All patients were then continued on oral antiplatelet therapy.

The primary efficacy outcome was neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase in NIHSS score of 4 points or more.

This occurred in nine patients (4.2%) in the tirofiban group vs 28 (13.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002).

A consistent benefit of IV tirofiban was seen across all subgroups.

The secondary endpoint of neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase of NIHSS score of 2 points or more, was also significantly reduced. This occurred in 11.7% of the tirofiban group vs 23.6% of the aspirin group (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.75; P = .001).

An excellent outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score (mRS, 0-1) at 90 days was seen in 75% of tirofiban vs 68% of aspirin patients, a nonsignificant difference.

A good outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 89% of tirofiban vs 86% of aspirin patients, again a nonsignificant difference.

There were no symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages within 72 hours after randomization (the primary safety endpoint) in either group, and the incidence of systemic bleeding also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Dr. Wenbo concluded that further randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the efficacy of tirofiban on functional outcomes.

‘Promising Results’

Commenting on the study for this news organization, conference chair, Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, and vice-chair, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, both said they thought the results were promising.

“This study didn’t show any long-term outcome benefit, but this was a smaller study, and the results need to be replicated in a larger study with sufficient power to look at longer-term outcomes,” Sansing noted. “But we don’t have anything better than aspirin at present for these patients, so it’s exciting that there may be something in the pipeline for this group.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the TREND trial selected patients on the cause of their stroke, in line with the practice of precision medicine.

“By excluding patients who received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and those who had cardioembolic strokes, we are left with a population who we don’t have many treatment options for,” he said. “These are patients with smaller or moderate strokes who may arrive too late for thrombolysis. It would be great to be able to do something more than just aspirin for these patients.”

Dr. Jovin noted that the study was underpowered to show long-term benefits, but there were some promising trends.

“It stands to reason that if neurologic function does not get worse in the early hours and days after stroke, then the long-term outcomes are likely to be better,” he noted. “But this needs to be confirmed in larger trials.”

Interestingly, another study, the MOST trial, also presented at the ISC-24 meeting, showed no benefit with the IV antithrombotic agents argatroban or eptifibatide on 90-day functional outcomes when added to thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke.

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the MOST and TREND trials included different populations of patients — the MOST patients received thrombolysis, while the TREND patients did not. And in the MOST trial, about half the patients had a large vessel occlusion and underwent thrombectomy, whereas these patients were excluded in TREND.

Dr. Sansing added that patients in the TREND trial may have had small vessel disease or other atherosclerotic disease, or strokes due to the narrowing of vessels or due to an unknown cause. They were also given 3 days of IV tirofiban, whereas the duration of antithrombotic treatment in MOST was shorter.

The TREND study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the National Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality, and the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intravenous (IV) administration of the antiplatelet agent tirofiban for 72 hours was associated with a reduction in early neurologic deterioration compared with oral aspirin therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke, in the randomized TREND trial.

The results were presented at the International Stroke Conference 2024, held on February 7-9 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Lead author Zhao Wenbo, MD, Xuanwu Hospital, Beijing, China, noted that neurologic deterioration, characterized by a sudden onset and quick peak of neurologic deficits, is a common phenomenon in acute ischemic stroke and is strongly associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Ischemic stroke progression is the main cause of neurologic deterioration, especially during the first few days after onset, Dr. Wenbo said. Several clinical studies have found that intensive antiplatelet therapy may prevent early neurologic deterioration and improve functional outcomes, but administering oral antiplatelet agents can be difficult because of dysphagia, he reported.

The TREND trial was conducted to investigate whether IV tirofiban could prevent early neurologic deterioration without increasing the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage in acute ischemic stroke.

The study included 426 patients with acute ischemic stroke within 24 hours of symptom onset who had a neurologic deficit attributed to focal cerebral ischemia and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score between 4 and 20 points and who were not treated with thrombolysis or endovascular thrombectomy. Patients with cardioembolic stroke were also excluded.

Patients were a median of 10-12 hours from symptom onset and had a baseline NIHSS score of 5.

They were randomized to IV tirofiban or oral aspirin for 72 hours. All patients were then continued on oral antiplatelet therapy.

The primary efficacy outcome was neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase in NIHSS score of 4 points or more.

This occurred in nine patients (4.2%) in the tirofiban group vs 28 (13.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002).

A consistent benefit of IV tirofiban was seen across all subgroups.

The secondary endpoint of neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase of NIHSS score of 2 points or more, was also significantly reduced. This occurred in 11.7% of the tirofiban group vs 23.6% of the aspirin group (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.75; P = .001).

An excellent outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score (mRS, 0-1) at 90 days was seen in 75% of tirofiban vs 68% of aspirin patients, a nonsignificant difference.

A good outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 89% of tirofiban vs 86% of aspirin patients, again a nonsignificant difference.

There were no symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages within 72 hours after randomization (the primary safety endpoint) in either group, and the incidence of systemic bleeding also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Dr. Wenbo concluded that further randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the efficacy of tirofiban on functional outcomes.

‘Promising Results’

Commenting on the study for this news organization, conference chair, Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, and vice-chair, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, both said they thought the results were promising.

“This study didn’t show any long-term outcome benefit, but this was a smaller study, and the results need to be replicated in a larger study with sufficient power to look at longer-term outcomes,” Sansing noted. “But we don’t have anything better than aspirin at present for these patients, so it’s exciting that there may be something in the pipeline for this group.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the TREND trial selected patients on the cause of their stroke, in line with the practice of precision medicine.

“By excluding patients who received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and those who had cardioembolic strokes, we are left with a population who we don’t have many treatment options for,” he said. “These are patients with smaller or moderate strokes who may arrive too late for thrombolysis. It would be great to be able to do something more than just aspirin for these patients.”

Dr. Jovin noted that the study was underpowered to show long-term benefits, but there were some promising trends.

“It stands to reason that if neurologic function does not get worse in the early hours and days after stroke, then the long-term outcomes are likely to be better,” he noted. “But this needs to be confirmed in larger trials.”

Interestingly, another study, the MOST trial, also presented at the ISC-24 meeting, showed no benefit with the IV antithrombotic agents argatroban or eptifibatide on 90-day functional outcomes when added to thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke.

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the MOST and TREND trials included different populations of patients — the MOST patients received thrombolysis, while the TREND patients did not. And in the MOST trial, about half the patients had a large vessel occlusion and underwent thrombectomy, whereas these patients were excluded in TREND.

Dr. Sansing added that patients in the TREND trial may have had small vessel disease or other atherosclerotic disease, or strokes due to the narrowing of vessels or due to an unknown cause. They were also given 3 days of IV tirofiban, whereas the duration of antithrombotic treatment in MOST was shorter.

The TREND study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the National Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality, and the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intravenous (IV) administration of the antiplatelet agent tirofiban for 72 hours was associated with a reduction in early neurologic deterioration compared with oral aspirin therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke, in the randomized TREND trial.

The results were presented at the International Stroke Conference 2024, held on February 7-9 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Lead author Zhao Wenbo, MD, Xuanwu Hospital, Beijing, China, noted that neurologic deterioration, characterized by a sudden onset and quick peak of neurologic deficits, is a common phenomenon in acute ischemic stroke and is strongly associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Ischemic stroke progression is the main cause of neurologic deterioration, especially during the first few days after onset, Dr. Wenbo said. Several clinical studies have found that intensive antiplatelet therapy may prevent early neurologic deterioration and improve functional outcomes, but administering oral antiplatelet agents can be difficult because of dysphagia, he reported.

The TREND trial was conducted to investigate whether IV tirofiban could prevent early neurologic deterioration without increasing the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage in acute ischemic stroke.

The study included 426 patients with acute ischemic stroke within 24 hours of symptom onset who had a neurologic deficit attributed to focal cerebral ischemia and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score between 4 and 20 points and who were not treated with thrombolysis or endovascular thrombectomy. Patients with cardioembolic stroke were also excluded.

Patients were a median of 10-12 hours from symptom onset and had a baseline NIHSS score of 5.

They were randomized to IV tirofiban or oral aspirin for 72 hours. All patients were then continued on oral antiplatelet therapy.

The primary efficacy outcome was neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase in NIHSS score of 4 points or more.

This occurred in nine patients (4.2%) in the tirofiban group vs 28 (13.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002).

A consistent benefit of IV tirofiban was seen across all subgroups.

The secondary endpoint of neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase of NIHSS score of 2 points or more, was also significantly reduced. This occurred in 11.7% of the tirofiban group vs 23.6% of the aspirin group (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.75; P = .001).

An excellent outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score (mRS, 0-1) at 90 days was seen in 75% of tirofiban vs 68% of aspirin patients, a nonsignificant difference.

A good outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 89% of tirofiban vs 86% of aspirin patients, again a nonsignificant difference.

There were no symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages within 72 hours after randomization (the primary safety endpoint) in either group, and the incidence of systemic bleeding also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Dr. Wenbo concluded that further randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the efficacy of tirofiban on functional outcomes.

‘Promising Results’

Commenting on the study for this news organization, conference chair, Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, and vice-chair, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, both said they thought the results were promising.

“This study didn’t show any long-term outcome benefit, but this was a smaller study, and the results need to be replicated in a larger study with sufficient power to look at longer-term outcomes,” Sansing noted. “But we don’t have anything better than aspirin at present for these patients, so it’s exciting that there may be something in the pipeline for this group.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the TREND trial selected patients on the cause of their stroke, in line with the practice of precision medicine.

“By excluding patients who received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and those who had cardioembolic strokes, we are left with a population who we don’t have many treatment options for,” he said. “These are patients with smaller or moderate strokes who may arrive too late for thrombolysis. It would be great to be able to do something more than just aspirin for these patients.”

Dr. Jovin noted that the study was underpowered to show long-term benefits, but there were some promising trends.

“It stands to reason that if neurologic function does not get worse in the early hours and days after stroke, then the long-term outcomes are likely to be better,” he noted. “But this needs to be confirmed in larger trials.”

Interestingly, another study, the MOST trial, also presented at the ISC-24 meeting, showed no benefit with the IV antithrombotic agents argatroban or eptifibatide on 90-day functional outcomes when added to thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke.

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the MOST and TREND trials included different populations of patients — the MOST patients received thrombolysis, while the TREND patients did not. And in the MOST trial, about half the patients had a large vessel occlusion and underwent thrombectomy, whereas these patients were excluded in TREND.

Dr. Sansing added that patients in the TREND trial may have had small vessel disease or other atherosclerotic disease, or strokes due to the narrowing of vessels or due to an unknown cause. They were also given 3 days of IV tirofiban, whereas the duration of antithrombotic treatment in MOST was shorter.

The TREND study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the National Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality, and the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Has COVID replaced syphilis as the great imitator? At the turn of the 20th century, Sir William Osler was quoted as saying, “He who knows syphilis knows medicine.”

If you have any doubts about the “imitator” analogy, simply use any broad search engine or AI portal and enter “what is the differential diagnosis of primary syphilis, or secondary syphilis, or tertiary syphilis?” A plethora of diseases across many body systems appears.
 

Another Great Pretender?

Did you or do you now have long COVID? How do you know? Do you even know what long COVID is? How would you diagnosis it?

When asked about long COVID, this is what large language model source bard.google.com had to say:

Long COVID, also known as post-COVID conditions or PASC, is a complex condition that can occur in people who have had COVID-19, even if their initial illness was mild or even asymptomatic. It’s characterized by a wide range of symptoms that can last for weeks, months, or even years after the initial infection.

Symptoms of long COVID can include: fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog (trouble thinking or concentrating), loss of smell or taste, sleep problems, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, dizziness, depression or anxiety, heart palpitations, gastrointestinal problems.

Duh!!! It reads much like a continuation of the symptoms of acute COVID. Bard continued:

The exact cause of long COVID is still unknown, but there are several theories. One possibility is that the virus itself can damage organs and tissues, leading to ongoing symptoms. Another possibility is that the immune system’s response to the virus can continue to cause inflammation even after the virus is gone.

Human intelligence source Wikipedia says this:

Long COVID or long-haul COVID is a group of health problems persisting or developing after an initial COVID-19 infection. Symptoms can last weeks, months or years and are often debilitating. The World Health Organization defines long COVID as starting three months after infection, but other definitions put the start of long COVID at four weeks.

Highly varied, including post-exertional malaise (symptoms made worse with effort), fatigue, muscle pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog).
 

Acute COVID to Long COVID

The World Health Organization estimates that 36 million people in the European region have developed long COVID in the first 3 years of the pandemic. That›s a lot.

We all know that the common signs and symptoms of acute COVID-19 include fever or chills, a dry cough and shortness of breath, feeling very tired, muscle or body aches, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Except for the taste and smell findings, every one of these symptoms or signs could indicate a different virus infection or even some type of allergy. My point is the nonspecificity in this list.

Uncommon signs and symptoms of acute COVID include a flat skin rash covered with small bumps, discolored swollen areas on the fingers and toes (COVID toes), and hives. The skin of hands, wrists, or ankles also can be affected. Blisters, itchiness, rough skin, or pus can be seen.

Severe confusion (delirium) might be the main or only symptom of COVID-19 in older people. This COVID-19 symptom is linked with a high risk for poor outcomes, including death. Pink eye (conjunctivitis) can be a COVID-19 symptom. Other eye problems linked to COVID-19 are light sensitivity, sore eyes, and itchy eyes. Acute myocarditis, tinnitus, vertigo, and hearing loss have been reported. And 1-4 weeks after the onset of COVID-19 infection, a patient may experience de novo reactive synovitis and arthritis of any joints.

So, take your pick. Myriad symptoms, signs, diseases, diagnoses, and organ systems — still present, recurring, just appearing, apparently de novo, or after asymptomatic infection. We have so much still to learn.

What big-time symptoms, signs, and major diseases are not on any of these lists? Obviously, cancer, atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, obesity, bone diseases, and competitive infections. But be patient; the lingering effects of direct tissue invasion by the virus as well as a wide range of immunologic reactions may just be getting started. Mitochondrial damage, especially in muscles, is increasingly a pathophysiologic suspect.

Human diseases can be physical or mental; and in COVID, that twain not only meet but mix and mingle freely, and may even merge into psychosoma. Don’t ever forget that. Consider “fatigue.” Who among us, COVID or NOVID, does not experience that from time to time?

Or consider brain fog as a common reported symptom of COVID. What on earth is that actually? How can a person know they have brain fog, or whether they had it and are over it?

We need one or more lab or other diagnostic tests that can objectively confirm the diagnosis of long COVID.
 

Useful Progress?

A recent research paper in Science reported intriguing chemical findings that seemed to point a finger at some form of complement dysregulation as a potential disease marker for long COVID. Unfortunately, some critics have pointed out that this entire study may be invalid or irrelevant because the New York cohort was recruited in 2020, before vaccines were available. The Zurich cohort was recruited up until April 2021, so some may have been vaccinated.

Then this news organization came along in early January 2024 with an article about COVID causing not only more than a million American deaths but also more than 5000 deaths from long COVID. We physicians don’t really know what long COVID even is, but we have to sign death certificates blaming thousands of deaths on it anyway? And rolling back the clock to 2020: Are patients dying from COVID or with COVID, according to death certificates?Now, armed with the knowledge that “documented serious post–COVID-19 conditions include cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, renal, endocrine, hematological, and gastrointestinal complications, as well as death,” CDC has published clear and fairly concise instructions on how to address post-acute COVID sequelae on death certificates.

In late January, this news organization painted a hopeful picture by naming four phenotypes of long COVID, suggesting that such divisions might further our understanding, including prognosis, and even therapy for this condition. Among the clinical phenotypes of (1) chronic fatigue–like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; (2) respiratory syndrome (which includes cough and difficulty breathing); (3) chronic pain; and (4) neurosensorial syndrome (which causes an altered sense of taste and smell), overlap is clearly possible but isn›t addressed.

I see these recent developments as needed and useful progress, but we are still left with…not much. So, when you tell me that you do or do not have long COVID, I will say to you, “How do you know?”

I also say: She/he/they who know COVID know medicine.

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

Has COVID replaced syphilis as the great imitator? At the turn of the 20th century, Sir William Osler was quoted as saying, “He who knows syphilis knows medicine.”

If you have any doubts about the “imitator” analogy, simply use any broad search engine or AI portal and enter “what is the differential diagnosis of primary syphilis, or secondary syphilis, or tertiary syphilis?” A plethora of diseases across many body systems appears.
 

Another Great Pretender?

Did you or do you now have long COVID? How do you know? Do you even know what long COVID is? How would you diagnosis it?

When asked about long COVID, this is what large language model source bard.google.com had to say:

Long COVID, also known as post-COVID conditions or PASC, is a complex condition that can occur in people who have had COVID-19, even if their initial illness was mild or even asymptomatic. It’s characterized by a wide range of symptoms that can last for weeks, months, or even years after the initial infection.

Symptoms of long COVID can include: fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog (trouble thinking or concentrating), loss of smell or taste, sleep problems, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, dizziness, depression or anxiety, heart palpitations, gastrointestinal problems.

Duh!!! It reads much like a continuation of the symptoms of acute COVID. Bard continued:

The exact cause of long COVID is still unknown, but there are several theories. One possibility is that the virus itself can damage organs and tissues, leading to ongoing symptoms. Another possibility is that the immune system’s response to the virus can continue to cause inflammation even after the virus is gone.

Human intelligence source Wikipedia says this:

Long COVID or long-haul COVID is a group of health problems persisting or developing after an initial COVID-19 infection. Symptoms can last weeks, months or years and are often debilitating. The World Health Organization defines long COVID as starting three months after infection, but other definitions put the start of long COVID at four weeks.

Highly varied, including post-exertional malaise (symptoms made worse with effort), fatigue, muscle pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog).
 

Acute COVID to Long COVID

The World Health Organization estimates that 36 million people in the European region have developed long COVID in the first 3 years of the pandemic. That›s a lot.

We all know that the common signs and symptoms of acute COVID-19 include fever or chills, a dry cough and shortness of breath, feeling very tired, muscle or body aches, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Except for the taste and smell findings, every one of these symptoms or signs could indicate a different virus infection or even some type of allergy. My point is the nonspecificity in this list.

Uncommon signs and symptoms of acute COVID include a flat skin rash covered with small bumps, discolored swollen areas on the fingers and toes (COVID toes), and hives. The skin of hands, wrists, or ankles also can be affected. Blisters, itchiness, rough skin, or pus can be seen.

Severe confusion (delirium) might be the main or only symptom of COVID-19 in older people. This COVID-19 symptom is linked with a high risk for poor outcomes, including death. Pink eye (conjunctivitis) can be a COVID-19 symptom. Other eye problems linked to COVID-19 are light sensitivity, sore eyes, and itchy eyes. Acute myocarditis, tinnitus, vertigo, and hearing loss have been reported. And 1-4 weeks after the onset of COVID-19 infection, a patient may experience de novo reactive synovitis and arthritis of any joints.

So, take your pick. Myriad symptoms, signs, diseases, diagnoses, and organ systems — still present, recurring, just appearing, apparently de novo, or after asymptomatic infection. We have so much still to learn.

What big-time symptoms, signs, and major diseases are not on any of these lists? Obviously, cancer, atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, obesity, bone diseases, and competitive infections. But be patient; the lingering effects of direct tissue invasion by the virus as well as a wide range of immunologic reactions may just be getting started. Mitochondrial damage, especially in muscles, is increasingly a pathophysiologic suspect.

Human diseases can be physical or mental; and in COVID, that twain not only meet but mix and mingle freely, and may even merge into psychosoma. Don’t ever forget that. Consider “fatigue.” Who among us, COVID or NOVID, does not experience that from time to time?

Or consider brain fog as a common reported symptom of COVID. What on earth is that actually? How can a person know they have brain fog, or whether they had it and are over it?

We need one or more lab or other diagnostic tests that can objectively confirm the diagnosis of long COVID.
 

Useful Progress?

A recent research paper in Science reported intriguing chemical findings that seemed to point a finger at some form of complement dysregulation as a potential disease marker for long COVID. Unfortunately, some critics have pointed out that this entire study may be invalid or irrelevant because the New York cohort was recruited in 2020, before vaccines were available. The Zurich cohort was recruited up until April 2021, so some may have been vaccinated.

Then this news organization came along in early January 2024 with an article about COVID causing not only more than a million American deaths but also more than 5000 deaths from long COVID. We physicians don’t really know what long COVID even is, but we have to sign death certificates blaming thousands of deaths on it anyway? And rolling back the clock to 2020: Are patients dying from COVID or with COVID, according to death certificates?Now, armed with the knowledge that “documented serious post–COVID-19 conditions include cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, renal, endocrine, hematological, and gastrointestinal complications, as well as death,” CDC has published clear and fairly concise instructions on how to address post-acute COVID sequelae on death certificates.

In late January, this news organization painted a hopeful picture by naming four phenotypes of long COVID, suggesting that such divisions might further our understanding, including prognosis, and even therapy for this condition. Among the clinical phenotypes of (1) chronic fatigue–like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; (2) respiratory syndrome (which includes cough and difficulty breathing); (3) chronic pain; and (4) neurosensorial syndrome (which causes an altered sense of taste and smell), overlap is clearly possible but isn›t addressed.

I see these recent developments as needed and useful progress, but we are still left with…not much. So, when you tell me that you do or do not have long COVID, I will say to you, “How do you know?”

I also say: She/he/they who know COVID know medicine.

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

Has COVID replaced syphilis as the great imitator? At the turn of the 20th century, Sir William Osler was quoted as saying, “He who knows syphilis knows medicine.”

If you have any doubts about the “imitator” analogy, simply use any broad search engine or AI portal and enter “what is the differential diagnosis of primary syphilis, or secondary syphilis, or tertiary syphilis?” A plethora of diseases across many body systems appears.
 

Another Great Pretender?

Did you or do you now have long COVID? How do you know? Do you even know what long COVID is? How would you diagnosis it?

When asked about long COVID, this is what large language model source bard.google.com had to say:

Long COVID, also known as post-COVID conditions or PASC, is a complex condition that can occur in people who have had COVID-19, even if their initial illness was mild or even asymptomatic. It’s characterized by a wide range of symptoms that can last for weeks, months, or even years after the initial infection.

Symptoms of long COVID can include: fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog (trouble thinking or concentrating), loss of smell or taste, sleep problems, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, dizziness, depression or anxiety, heart palpitations, gastrointestinal problems.

Duh!!! It reads much like a continuation of the symptoms of acute COVID. Bard continued:

The exact cause of long COVID is still unknown, but there are several theories. One possibility is that the virus itself can damage organs and tissues, leading to ongoing symptoms. Another possibility is that the immune system’s response to the virus can continue to cause inflammation even after the virus is gone.

Human intelligence source Wikipedia says this:

Long COVID or long-haul COVID is a group of health problems persisting or developing after an initial COVID-19 infection. Symptoms can last weeks, months or years and are often debilitating. The World Health Organization defines long COVID as starting three months after infection, but other definitions put the start of long COVID at four weeks.

Highly varied, including post-exertional malaise (symptoms made worse with effort), fatigue, muscle pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog).
 

Acute COVID to Long COVID

The World Health Organization estimates that 36 million people in the European region have developed long COVID in the first 3 years of the pandemic. That›s a lot.

We all know that the common signs and symptoms of acute COVID-19 include fever or chills, a dry cough and shortness of breath, feeling very tired, muscle or body aches, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Except for the taste and smell findings, every one of these symptoms or signs could indicate a different virus infection or even some type of allergy. My point is the nonspecificity in this list.

Uncommon signs and symptoms of acute COVID include a flat skin rash covered with small bumps, discolored swollen areas on the fingers and toes (COVID toes), and hives. The skin of hands, wrists, or ankles also can be affected. Blisters, itchiness, rough skin, or pus can be seen.

Severe confusion (delirium) might be the main or only symptom of COVID-19 in older people. This COVID-19 symptom is linked with a high risk for poor outcomes, including death. Pink eye (conjunctivitis) can be a COVID-19 symptom. Other eye problems linked to COVID-19 are light sensitivity, sore eyes, and itchy eyes. Acute myocarditis, tinnitus, vertigo, and hearing loss have been reported. And 1-4 weeks after the onset of COVID-19 infection, a patient may experience de novo reactive synovitis and arthritis of any joints.

So, take your pick. Myriad symptoms, signs, diseases, diagnoses, and organ systems — still present, recurring, just appearing, apparently de novo, or after asymptomatic infection. We have so much still to learn.

What big-time symptoms, signs, and major diseases are not on any of these lists? Obviously, cancer, atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, obesity, bone diseases, and competitive infections. But be patient; the lingering effects of direct tissue invasion by the virus as well as a wide range of immunologic reactions may just be getting started. Mitochondrial damage, especially in muscles, is increasingly a pathophysiologic suspect.

Human diseases can be physical or mental; and in COVID, that twain not only meet but mix and mingle freely, and may even merge into psychosoma. Don’t ever forget that. Consider “fatigue.” Who among us, COVID or NOVID, does not experience that from time to time?

Or consider brain fog as a common reported symptom of COVID. What on earth is that actually? How can a person know they have brain fog, or whether they had it and are over it?

We need one or more lab or other diagnostic tests that can objectively confirm the diagnosis of long COVID.
 

Useful Progress?

A recent research paper in Science reported intriguing chemical findings that seemed to point a finger at some form of complement dysregulation as a potential disease marker for long COVID. Unfortunately, some critics have pointed out that this entire study may be invalid or irrelevant because the New York cohort was recruited in 2020, before vaccines were available. The Zurich cohort was recruited up until April 2021, so some may have been vaccinated.

Then this news organization came along in early January 2024 with an article about COVID causing not only more than a million American deaths but also more than 5000 deaths from long COVID. We physicians don’t really know what long COVID even is, but we have to sign death certificates blaming thousands of deaths on it anyway? And rolling back the clock to 2020: Are patients dying from COVID or with COVID, according to death certificates?Now, armed with the knowledge that “documented serious post–COVID-19 conditions include cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, renal, endocrine, hematological, and gastrointestinal complications, as well as death,” CDC has published clear and fairly concise instructions on how to address post-acute COVID sequelae on death certificates.

In late January, this news organization painted a hopeful picture by naming four phenotypes of long COVID, suggesting that such divisions might further our understanding, including prognosis, and even therapy for this condition. Among the clinical phenotypes of (1) chronic fatigue–like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; (2) respiratory syndrome (which includes cough and difficulty breathing); (3) chronic pain; and (4) neurosensorial syndrome (which causes an altered sense of taste and smell), overlap is clearly possible but isn›t addressed.

I see these recent developments as needed and useful progress, but we are still left with…not much. So, when you tell me that you do or do not have long COVID, I will say to you, “How do you know?”

I also say: She/he/they who know COVID know medicine.

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