MDedge Rheumatology

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

TOPLINE:

In patients with fibromyalgia, cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) can reduce pain through its effect on pain-related catastrophizing, which involves intensified cognitive and emotional responses to things like intrusive thoughts, a new study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 98 female patients with fibromyalgia (FM), mean age about 42 years, who underwent a baseline neuroimaging assessment and were randomly assigned to CBT (where patients learned to identify negative thoughts and use cognitive restructuring to diminish pain-related distress) or a matched educational intervention (where patients learned about fibromyalgia and chronic pain); both groups had eight weekly individual 60- to 75-minute visits.
• The primary outcome was the pain interference subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI); secondary outcomes included the BPI pain severity subscale, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire–Revised (FIQR), and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), which includes subscales of rumination, magnification, and helplessness.
• Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-adapted task to investigate the neural circuitry supporting pain catastrophizing.

TAKEAWAY:

• After controlling for baseline values, BPI pain interference scores were significantly reduced, with a larger reduction in the CBT group, compared with the education group (P = .03), which was also the case for FIQR scores (P = .05) and pain catastrophizing (P = .04).
• There were larger reductions in pain-related symptomatology in the CBT group, but they did not reach statistical significance.
• Following CBT treatment, the study showed reduced connectivity between regions of the brain associated with self-awareness, pain, and emotional processing.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “highlight the important role of targeting pain catastrophizing with psychotherapy, particularly for patients reporting high levels of catastrophizing cognitions” write the authors, adding that altered network connectivity identified by the study “may emerge as a valuable biomarker of catastrophizing-related cognitive and affective processes.”

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Jeungchan Lee, PhD, department of radiology, center for biomedical imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the Discovery Center for Recovery from Chronic Pain, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. It was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings were limited to female participants. CBT for chronic pain includes different therapeutic modules, and the study can’t draw definitive conclusions regarding which CBT skills were most beneficial to patients in reducing catastrophizing. Baseline symptom severity was higher for the CBT group, which may complicate interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the National Center for Research Resources. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with fibromyalgia, cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) can reduce pain through its effect on pain-related catastrophizing, which involves intensified cognitive and emotional responses to things like intrusive thoughts, a new study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 98 female patients with fibromyalgia (FM), mean age about 42 years, who underwent a baseline neuroimaging assessment and were randomly assigned to CBT (where patients learned to identify negative thoughts and use cognitive restructuring to diminish pain-related distress) or a matched educational intervention (where patients learned about fibromyalgia and chronic pain); both groups had eight weekly individual 60- to 75-minute visits.
• The primary outcome was the pain interference subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI); secondary outcomes included the BPI pain severity subscale, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire–Revised (FIQR), and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), which includes subscales of rumination, magnification, and helplessness.
• Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-adapted task to investigate the neural circuitry supporting pain catastrophizing.

TAKEAWAY:

• After controlling for baseline values, BPI pain interference scores were significantly reduced, with a larger reduction in the CBT group, compared with the education group (P = .03), which was also the case for FIQR scores (P = .05) and pain catastrophizing (P = .04).
• There were larger reductions in pain-related symptomatology in the CBT group, but they did not reach statistical significance.
• Following CBT treatment, the study showed reduced connectivity between regions of the brain associated with self-awareness, pain, and emotional processing.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “highlight the important role of targeting pain catastrophizing with psychotherapy, particularly for patients reporting high levels of catastrophizing cognitions” write the authors, adding that altered network connectivity identified by the study “may emerge as a valuable biomarker of catastrophizing-related cognitive and affective processes.”

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Jeungchan Lee, PhD, department of radiology, center for biomedical imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the Discovery Center for Recovery from Chronic Pain, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. It was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings were limited to female participants. CBT for chronic pain includes different therapeutic modules, and the study can’t draw definitive conclusions regarding which CBT skills were most beneficial to patients in reducing catastrophizing. Baseline symptom severity was higher for the CBT group, which may complicate interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the National Center for Research Resources. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with fibromyalgia, cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) can reduce pain through its effect on pain-related catastrophizing, which involves intensified cognitive and emotional responses to things like intrusive thoughts, a new study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 98 female patients with fibromyalgia (FM), mean age about 42 years, who underwent a baseline neuroimaging assessment and were randomly assigned to CBT (where patients learned to identify negative thoughts and use cognitive restructuring to diminish pain-related distress) or a matched educational intervention (where patients learned about fibromyalgia and chronic pain); both groups had eight weekly individual 60- to 75-minute visits.
• The primary outcome was the pain interference subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI); secondary outcomes included the BPI pain severity subscale, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire–Revised (FIQR), and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), which includes subscales of rumination, magnification, and helplessness.
• Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-adapted task to investigate the neural circuitry supporting pain catastrophizing.

TAKEAWAY:

• After controlling for baseline values, BPI pain interference scores were significantly reduced, with a larger reduction in the CBT group, compared with the education group (P = .03), which was also the case for FIQR scores (P = .05) and pain catastrophizing (P = .04).
• There were larger reductions in pain-related symptomatology in the CBT group, but they did not reach statistical significance.
• Following CBT treatment, the study showed reduced connectivity between regions of the brain associated with self-awareness, pain, and emotional processing.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “highlight the important role of targeting pain catastrophizing with psychotherapy, particularly for patients reporting high levels of catastrophizing cognitions” write the authors, adding that altered network connectivity identified by the study “may emerge as a valuable biomarker of catastrophizing-related cognitive and affective processes.”

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Jeungchan Lee, PhD, department of radiology, center for biomedical imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the Discovery Center for Recovery from Chronic Pain, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. It was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings were limited to female participants. CBT for chronic pain includes different therapeutic modules, and the study can’t draw definitive conclusions regarding which CBT skills were most beneficial to patients in reducing catastrophizing. Baseline symptom severity was higher for the CBT group, which may complicate interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the National Center for Research Resources. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PET scans may serve as both a diagnostic and prognostic tool in giant cell arteritis (GCA), according to a new study.

In over 100 patients with GCA who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging, those with elevated FDG uptake at diagnosis were more likely to develop thoracic aortic aneurysms.

“PET-CT has an excellent diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of GCA, certainly if both extracranial and intracranial vessels were assessed. This study shows that performing PET imaging at diagnosis in patients with GCA may also help estimate the future risk for aortic aneurysm formation,” lead author Lien Moreel, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), wrote in an email. “PET imaging at diagnosis can provide both diagnostic and prognostic information in one imaging tool in patients with GCA.”

Brudersohn/CC BY-SA 3.0/Wikimedia Commons

Previous retrospective studies have found an association between FDG uptake at diagnosis and risk for aortic complications, but “prospective studies confirming these findings are lacking,” the investigators wrote. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the study, Dr. Moreel and colleagues prospectively followed 106 individuals diagnosed with GCA who received FDG-PET within 3 days after starting glucocorticoids. Patients also had CT imaging at diagnosis and then CT imaging annually for up to 10 years. 

A PET scan was considered positive with an FDG uptake of grade 2 or higher in any of seven vascular regions (thoracic and abdominal aorta, subclavian, axillary, carotid, iliac, and femoral arteries). Researchers also used the results to quantify a total vascular score (TVS). Out of the entire cohort, 75 patients had a positive PET scan result.

These patients had a larger increase in the diameter of the ascending aorta and the descending aorta, as well the volume of thoracic aorta after 5 years, compared with those who had a negative PET scan result. These changes were also associated with higher TVS at diagnosis. Of the 23 patients who developed an aortic aneurysm, 18 had a positive PET scan at diagnosis.

The risk of incident thoracic aortic aneurysms was calculated to be 10 times higher in patients with positive PET scans. Fourteen of the 15 patients (93%) with an incident thoracic aortic aneurysm had positive PET results.

Up to now, “we’ve had no way of predicting which patients might be at risk of this potentially serious complication,” Kenneth Warrington, MD, chair of the department of rheumatology and director of the Vasculitis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

He hopes that the findings will help inform clinicians on how patients with GCA should be evaluated and monitored. Although the American College of Rheumatology conditionally recommends noninvasive imaging in patients newly diagnosed with GCA, guidance for follow-up on these patients is less clear.

“There are no clear guidelines, but most clinicians who take care of patients with GCA do obtain imaging periodically,” he said. “There is a lot of variability in the practice in terms of which type of scan is used and how often it’s done.”

Although this study did not specifically look at the benefit of screening patients, “we think that follow-up of aortic dimensions seems to be warranted in GCA patients with a positive PET scan result, especially in those with high intensity and broad extent of vascular inflammation,” Dr. Moreel said. “However, the added value of screening and the interval required should be addressed in future studies.”

Applying this study’s protocol in practice in the United States might be difficult, Dr. Warrington noted, as it can be challenging logistically to get imaging done within 3 days of starting steroids. However, Dr. Moreel said it is possible to delay the start of glucocorticoids until the PET scan is performed in patients without visual symptoms or jaw claudication.

PET scans are also expensive, and it can be difficult to get insurance coverage in the United States. However, other imaging modalities could potentially be used in similar ways, Dr. Warrington said. “One could potentially extrapolate to say that if there is difficulty with accessing PET scan, we could use other modalities like CT or MRI basically to see whether the aorta is inflamed or not.”

Dr. Moreel disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Warrington has received compensation for consulting activities with Sanofi. Eli Lilly, Kiniksa, and Bristol-Myers Squibb have provided support to the Mayo Clinic for clinical trials related to GCA, of which Dr. Warrington served as subinvestigator.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PET scans may serve as both a diagnostic and prognostic tool in giant cell arteritis (GCA), according to a new study.

In over 100 patients with GCA who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging, those with elevated FDG uptake at diagnosis were more likely to develop thoracic aortic aneurysms.

“PET-CT has an excellent diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of GCA, certainly if both extracranial and intracranial vessels were assessed. This study shows that performing PET imaging at diagnosis in patients with GCA may also help estimate the future risk for aortic aneurysm formation,” lead author Lien Moreel, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), wrote in an email. “PET imaging at diagnosis can provide both diagnostic and prognostic information in one imaging tool in patients with GCA.”

Brudersohn/CC BY-SA 3.0/Wikimedia Commons

Previous retrospective studies have found an association between FDG uptake at diagnosis and risk for aortic complications, but “prospective studies confirming these findings are lacking,” the investigators wrote. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the study, Dr. Moreel and colleagues prospectively followed 106 individuals diagnosed with GCA who received FDG-PET within 3 days after starting glucocorticoids. Patients also had CT imaging at diagnosis and then CT imaging annually for up to 10 years. 

A PET scan was considered positive with an FDG uptake of grade 2 or higher in any of seven vascular regions (thoracic and abdominal aorta, subclavian, axillary, carotid, iliac, and femoral arteries). Researchers also used the results to quantify a total vascular score (TVS). Out of the entire cohort, 75 patients had a positive PET scan result.

These patients had a larger increase in the diameter of the ascending aorta and the descending aorta, as well the volume of thoracic aorta after 5 years, compared with those who had a negative PET scan result. These changes were also associated with higher TVS at diagnosis. Of the 23 patients who developed an aortic aneurysm, 18 had a positive PET scan at diagnosis.

The risk of incident thoracic aortic aneurysms was calculated to be 10 times higher in patients with positive PET scans. Fourteen of the 15 patients (93%) with an incident thoracic aortic aneurysm had positive PET results.

Up to now, “we’ve had no way of predicting which patients might be at risk of this potentially serious complication,” Kenneth Warrington, MD, chair of the department of rheumatology and director of the Vasculitis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

He hopes that the findings will help inform clinicians on how patients with GCA should be evaluated and monitored. Although the American College of Rheumatology conditionally recommends noninvasive imaging in patients newly diagnosed with GCA, guidance for follow-up on these patients is less clear.

“There are no clear guidelines, but most clinicians who take care of patients with GCA do obtain imaging periodically,” he said. “There is a lot of variability in the practice in terms of which type of scan is used and how often it’s done.”

Although this study did not specifically look at the benefit of screening patients, “we think that follow-up of aortic dimensions seems to be warranted in GCA patients with a positive PET scan result, especially in those with high intensity and broad extent of vascular inflammation,” Dr. Moreel said. “However, the added value of screening and the interval required should be addressed in future studies.”

Applying this study’s protocol in practice in the United States might be difficult, Dr. Warrington noted, as it can be challenging logistically to get imaging done within 3 days of starting steroids. However, Dr. Moreel said it is possible to delay the start of glucocorticoids until the PET scan is performed in patients without visual symptoms or jaw claudication.

PET scans are also expensive, and it can be difficult to get insurance coverage in the United States. However, other imaging modalities could potentially be used in similar ways, Dr. Warrington said. “One could potentially extrapolate to say that if there is difficulty with accessing PET scan, we could use other modalities like CT or MRI basically to see whether the aorta is inflamed or not.”

Dr. Moreel disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Warrington has received compensation for consulting activities with Sanofi. Eli Lilly, Kiniksa, and Bristol-Myers Squibb have provided support to the Mayo Clinic for clinical trials related to GCA, of which Dr. Warrington served as subinvestigator.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PET scans may serve as both a diagnostic and prognostic tool in giant cell arteritis (GCA), according to a new study.

In over 100 patients with GCA who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging, those with elevated FDG uptake at diagnosis were more likely to develop thoracic aortic aneurysms.

“PET-CT has an excellent diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of GCA, certainly if both extracranial and intracranial vessels were assessed. This study shows that performing PET imaging at diagnosis in patients with GCA may also help estimate the future risk for aortic aneurysm formation,” lead author Lien Moreel, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), wrote in an email. “PET imaging at diagnosis can provide both diagnostic and prognostic information in one imaging tool in patients with GCA.”

Brudersohn/CC BY-SA 3.0/Wikimedia Commons

Previous retrospective studies have found an association between FDG uptake at diagnosis and risk for aortic complications, but “prospective studies confirming these findings are lacking,” the investigators wrote. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the study, Dr. Moreel and colleagues prospectively followed 106 individuals diagnosed with GCA who received FDG-PET within 3 days after starting glucocorticoids. Patients also had CT imaging at diagnosis and then CT imaging annually for up to 10 years. 

A PET scan was considered positive with an FDG uptake of grade 2 or higher in any of seven vascular regions (thoracic and abdominal aorta, subclavian, axillary, carotid, iliac, and femoral arteries). Researchers also used the results to quantify a total vascular score (TVS). Out of the entire cohort, 75 patients had a positive PET scan result.

These patients had a larger increase in the diameter of the ascending aorta and the descending aorta, as well the volume of thoracic aorta after 5 years, compared with those who had a negative PET scan result. These changes were also associated with higher TVS at diagnosis. Of the 23 patients who developed an aortic aneurysm, 18 had a positive PET scan at diagnosis.

The risk of incident thoracic aortic aneurysms was calculated to be 10 times higher in patients with positive PET scans. Fourteen of the 15 patients (93%) with an incident thoracic aortic aneurysm had positive PET results.

Up to now, “we’ve had no way of predicting which patients might be at risk of this potentially serious complication,” Kenneth Warrington, MD, chair of the department of rheumatology and director of the Vasculitis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

He hopes that the findings will help inform clinicians on how patients with GCA should be evaluated and monitored. Although the American College of Rheumatology conditionally recommends noninvasive imaging in patients newly diagnosed with GCA, guidance for follow-up on these patients is less clear.

“There are no clear guidelines, but most clinicians who take care of patients with GCA do obtain imaging periodically,” he said. “There is a lot of variability in the practice in terms of which type of scan is used and how often it’s done.”

Although this study did not specifically look at the benefit of screening patients, “we think that follow-up of aortic dimensions seems to be warranted in GCA patients with a positive PET scan result, especially in those with high intensity and broad extent of vascular inflammation,” Dr. Moreel said. “However, the added value of screening and the interval required should be addressed in future studies.”

Applying this study’s protocol in practice in the United States might be difficult, Dr. Warrington noted, as it can be challenging logistically to get imaging done within 3 days of starting steroids. However, Dr. Moreel said it is possible to delay the start of glucocorticoids until the PET scan is performed in patients without visual symptoms or jaw claudication.

PET scans are also expensive, and it can be difficult to get insurance coverage in the United States. However, other imaging modalities could potentially be used in similar ways, Dr. Warrington said. “One could potentially extrapolate to say that if there is difficulty with accessing PET scan, we could use other modalities like CT or MRI basically to see whether the aorta is inflamed or not.”

Dr. Moreel disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Warrington has received compensation for consulting activities with Sanofi. Eli Lilly, Kiniksa, and Bristol-Myers Squibb have provided support to the Mayo Clinic for clinical trials related to GCA, of which Dr. Warrington served as subinvestigator.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-bavi (Tofidence), Biogen, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on Sept. 29.

It is the first tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The reference product, Actemra (Genentech), was first approved by the agency in 2010.

“The approval of Tofidence in the U.S. marks another positive step toward helping more people with chronic autoimmune conditions gain access to leading therapies,” Ian Henshaw, global head of biosimilars at Biogen, said in a statement. “With the increasing numbers of approved biosimilars, we expect increased savings and sustainability for health care systems and an increase in physician choice and patient access to biologics.”

Biogen’s pricing for tocilizumab-bavi will be available closer to the product’s launch date, which has yet to be determined, a company spokesman said. The U.S. average monthly cost of Actemra for rheumatoid arthritis, administered intravenously, is $2,134-$4,268 depending on dosage, according to a Genentech spokesperson.

Tocilizumab-bavi is an intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) indicated for treatment of moderately to severely active RA, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (PJIA), and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA). The medication is administered every 4 weeks in RA and PJIA and every 8 weeks in SJIA as a single intravenous drip infusion over 1 hour.

The European Commission approved its first tocilizumab biosimilar, Tyenne (Fresenius Kabi), earlier in 2023 in both subcutaneous and intravenous formulations. Biogen did not comment on whether the company is working on a subcutaneous formulation for tocilizumab-bavi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-bavi (Tofidence), Biogen, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on Sept. 29.

It is the first tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The reference product, Actemra (Genentech), was first approved by the agency in 2010.

“The approval of Tofidence in the U.S. marks another positive step toward helping more people with chronic autoimmune conditions gain access to leading therapies,” Ian Henshaw, global head of biosimilars at Biogen, said in a statement. “With the increasing numbers of approved biosimilars, we expect increased savings and sustainability for health care systems and an increase in physician choice and patient access to biologics.”

Biogen’s pricing for tocilizumab-bavi will be available closer to the product’s launch date, which has yet to be determined, a company spokesman said. The U.S. average monthly cost of Actemra for rheumatoid arthritis, administered intravenously, is $2,134-$4,268 depending on dosage, according to a Genentech spokesperson.

Tocilizumab-bavi is an intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) indicated for treatment of moderately to severely active RA, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (PJIA), and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA). The medication is administered every 4 weeks in RA and PJIA and every 8 weeks in SJIA as a single intravenous drip infusion over 1 hour.

The European Commission approved its first tocilizumab biosimilar, Tyenne (Fresenius Kabi), earlier in 2023 in both subcutaneous and intravenous formulations. Biogen did not comment on whether the company is working on a subcutaneous formulation for tocilizumab-bavi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-bavi (Tofidence), Biogen, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on Sept. 29.

It is the first tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The reference product, Actemra (Genentech), was first approved by the agency in 2010.

“The approval of Tofidence in the U.S. marks another positive step toward helping more people with chronic autoimmune conditions gain access to leading therapies,” Ian Henshaw, global head of biosimilars at Biogen, said in a statement. “With the increasing numbers of approved biosimilars, we expect increased savings and sustainability for health care systems and an increase in physician choice and patient access to biologics.”

Biogen’s pricing for tocilizumab-bavi will be available closer to the product’s launch date, which has yet to be determined, a company spokesman said. The U.S. average monthly cost of Actemra for rheumatoid arthritis, administered intravenously, is $2,134-$4,268 depending on dosage, according to a Genentech spokesperson.

Tocilizumab-bavi is an intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) indicated for treatment of moderately to severely active RA, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (PJIA), and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA). The medication is administered every 4 weeks in RA and PJIA and every 8 weeks in SJIA as a single intravenous drip infusion over 1 hour.

The European Commission approved its first tocilizumab biosimilar, Tyenne (Fresenius Kabi), earlier in 2023 in both subcutaneous and intravenous formulations. Biogen did not comment on whether the company is working on a subcutaneous formulation for tocilizumab-bavi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The question looms large for patients with stable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): to taper or not to taper corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy? For patients and the physicians treating them, the evidence points in both directions. Flares are exacerbated by tapering, but simultaneously organ damage is tempered. Where is the balance? What competing factors together inform decision-making?

A recent multinational, observational cohort study conducted by Jiacai Cho, MBBS, of National University Hospital, Singapore, and colleagues, and published in The Lancet Rheumatology concluded that, given the odds of excess flares associated with tapering of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE, drug tapering warrants careful consideration of risks and benefits and is best reserved for those in complete clinical and serological remission with stable disease for at least 6 months. However, in an accompanying editorial, Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, and Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, of the National Referral Center for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases at Cochin Hospital, Paris, and the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics at Paris City University, argued for tipping the scale back from some of those expressed cautions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In interviews, experts in the field expressed both strong appreciation for the cohort study and, like the editorialists, cognizance of its limitations.

Dr. Cho and colleagues recruited 3,002 adult patients with SLE (92.2% female, median age 39.5 years), from 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. They were receiving routine clinical care and had achieved stable disease in at least one of two or more visits. Stable disease was defined by meeting criteria for Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS; SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤ 4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤ 1, and prednisolone ≤ 7.5 mg/day), the 2021 DORIS definition of remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day), or DORIS complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day). Any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate) defined tapering. The investigators compared the odds of disease flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the visit following tapering among those with tapering versus those who had continued the same drug doses.
 

Higher odds of flare with tapering

Tapering, compared with continuing with the same dose, was clearly associated with higher odds of flare at the next visit (11.4% with continuing vs. 17.0% with tapering; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.39; P = .0005). Flares among patients who tapered were also slightly more often severe than with continuing the same dose (21.5% of flares vs. 19.7%). The level of remission at the time of tapering also mattered. Of 2,095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41.1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28.4%) in remission, and 639 (30.5%) in complete remission. Tapering when in LLDAS or remission, compared with complete remission, was associated with a higher likelihood of flare by 1 year (LLDAS: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .029; and remission: OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.94; P = .013). Time to first flare followed the same pattern. Also, sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit and flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.

Take baseline disease status, hydroxychloroquine’s effect into account

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau underscored several factors that may soften the risk for flares seen with tapering. They pointed to higher baseline doses of prednisone and immunosuppressants (and thus likely more severe disease that is more likely to flare) in the patients with tapering. Also, the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index used in the study classifies some clinically insignificant flares as mild to moderate and ignores the benefit of tapering. (It classifies patients as having a severe flare even when starting a new immunosuppressant prescription, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, or both, in an effort to reduce corticosteroid use.) They wrote that the study did not assess the rate of clinically meaningful flares (“essentially renal flares”), nor did it highlight that the “tiny” increase in absolute risk of severe flares (from 2.2% to 3.7%) could be further contextualized by the offset of the smaller, unmeasured rate of clinically significant flares and the “extremely relevant” risk of concomitant damage from prolonged treatment.

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau urged hydroxychloroquine use for all patients unless clearly contraindicated. In their own research, they have detailed hydroxychloroquine benefits in reducing not only flare risk, but also comorbidities, damage, and mortality. In the current study, the prevalence of hydroxychloroquine use in all the patient visits was only 63.3%. “We can assume that if more patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine, both the number of flares and the difference between the two strategies would have been lower,” they wrote. They cited findings from a study of patients in remission for 2 years or longer in the Toronto Lupus Cohort in which a gradual taper of corticosteroids over 1 year was safe and feasible and resulted in less damage accrual at 24 months than not tapering. Optimizing tapering can minimize flare risk, they concluded.

McGill University Health Center

Tapering SLE medications always involves some chance of flare and has to be considered a calculated risk, Sasha Bernatsky, MD, the James McGill professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Long-term prednisone is not good for patients. I have heard it called ‘the miracle drug from hell’ – meaning that, yes, it controls disease, but at a cost of long-term complications. So we must be conscientious about tapering prednisone.” She observed that in the short-term, there may not be a huge risk to keeping a patient on an antimalarial and counseling patients to stay on it because their risk of flare is higher if they taper. Rheumatologists usually agree, however, that after 10 years or more, there is a real chance of retinal toxicity. “In our Montreal cohort, the risk of retinal toxicity was 5% after an average of 12.8 years of antimalarial use. My concern is that if a patient develops SLE in their 20s, how do we decide if we should keep them on an antimalarial for the next 60 or 70 years? If we keep them on the drug from age 25 to 45, and they then get retinal toxicity, they would essentially never be able to be on the drug again. So I do try to keep patients on the lowest dose of an antimalarial that is possible.”

Dr. Bernatsky pointed out further, “We think about tapering other immunosuppressants (such as methotrexate or mycophenolate or azathioprine) quite differently than prednisone tapering. We take our time a bit more, since many patients will tolerate being on standard doses of these drugs fairly well. If or when we do consider tapering these drugs, both our intuition and the literature suggests that someone with worse baseline disease activity or severity, who has needed a lot of steroids and multiple combinations of drugs to control disease, has a higher chance of flaring than someone with milder disease. As the editorial points out, lupus physicians (and their patients) need to think carefully about the patient’s risk profile, and be sure to tailor follow-up based on flare risk.”

Frank discussions with patients about the risks of tapering are needed, she said. “On one hand, there is consensus about how some aspects of lupus should be managed (for example, aggressive treatment of severe nephritis), but on the other hand, when it comes to long-term management and especially discussing tapering, we must have good discussions with patients. When a patient asks if they can taper a drug – many just lower or stop their drugs without asking – I am as honest as I can be, but ultimately have to admit any taper could be associated with a flare. It’s helpful to have actual figures to discuss with patients.”
 

No surprises

“This is an interesting study, which did not produce any surprises,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at University of Toronto and senior scientist at the university’s Schroeder Arthritis Institute, said when asked to comment. “We already knew from previous studies that abrupt withdrawal is not a good idea, and that if you taper when a patient is under conditions of remission, the rate of flare is actually lower than the usual rate of flare that occurs in people who continue on these medications. But the major limitation is that they did not specifically look at those who we would taper in clinical practice. In addition, they do not specify that the patients had to be on low-dose glucocorticoids before tapering, and they combined both immunosuppressive and steroids. It is not clear from the study what the excess flare rate was, or whether the flares were mild or severe. Most flares in patients with SLE are mild, consisting of skin and joint manifestations, while only a few patients have flares in kidney or neurologic manifestations.”

Dr. Gladman described her approach to tapering: “We aim for our patients to be taking no more than 5 mg of prednisone and to be in at least clinical remission with a SLEDAI-2K of 0 for at least 2 years before we would taper to glucocorticoids withdrawal. We always withdraw glucocorticoids first and immunosuppressives later, and keep patients on antimalarials the longest, unless there are specific side effects to the immunosuppressive or antimalarials which require their cessation earlier.”
 

Uncertainty persists

Other SLE experts weighing in confirmed the view that future research should aim to achieve clarity about the relative risks and benefits of tapering SLE drug regimens to maintain disease remission while minimizing potential for organ damage.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Steroids are our friend and our enemy,” Joan T. Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “If a person with lupus is in a lot of trouble, corticosteroids are almost universally a good option to get them out. But for too many decades, for too many patients, despite all the improvements we have made in better understanding the disease and developing some promising new treatments, we have yet to shed the inexorable toxicity in multiple organs of steroid dependence.” She continued, “Corticosteroids, even at low dose, may have broad-spectrum effects. But, in fact, so do many of the more ‘targeted’ agents. If all patients were lined up at the beginning of a study while being given azathioprine or a calcineurin inhibitor or belimumab at a stable, tolerable dose, you might see the same data if you tapered that agent down. What we really need is improved individualized guidance about when and how fast to remove immune modulators from stable patients with lupus without disturbing the balance that had been achieved in such a quiescent patient.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

That enduring uncertainty was echoed by Daniel J. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles: “The take-home message from this interesting paper,” he commented, “is that current lupus biomarkers are not adequate. They do not guide the practitioner well enough, so that all too often medication regimens are tapered even though the risks are not really well known. Also, there is evidence in the literature that fibrosis and ‘damage’ progress even if acute phase reactants such as sedimentation rate, [C-reactive protein], complement 3 and 4, and anti-dsDNA are normal. We don’t have a good metric to detect them.”

Dr. Cho and colleagues’ study was funded by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB. Dr. Gladman disclosed consulting and/or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

The question looms large for patients with stable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): to taper or not to taper corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy? For patients and the physicians treating them, the evidence points in both directions. Flares are exacerbated by tapering, but simultaneously organ damage is tempered. Where is the balance? What competing factors together inform decision-making?

A recent multinational, observational cohort study conducted by Jiacai Cho, MBBS, of National University Hospital, Singapore, and colleagues, and published in The Lancet Rheumatology concluded that, given the odds of excess flares associated with tapering of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE, drug tapering warrants careful consideration of risks and benefits and is best reserved for those in complete clinical and serological remission with stable disease for at least 6 months. However, in an accompanying editorial, Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, and Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, of the National Referral Center for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases at Cochin Hospital, Paris, and the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics at Paris City University, argued for tipping the scale back from some of those expressed cautions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In interviews, experts in the field expressed both strong appreciation for the cohort study and, like the editorialists, cognizance of its limitations.

Dr. Cho and colleagues recruited 3,002 adult patients with SLE (92.2% female, median age 39.5 years), from 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. They were receiving routine clinical care and had achieved stable disease in at least one of two or more visits. Stable disease was defined by meeting criteria for Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS; SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤ 4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤ 1, and prednisolone ≤ 7.5 mg/day), the 2021 DORIS definition of remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day), or DORIS complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day). Any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate) defined tapering. The investigators compared the odds of disease flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the visit following tapering among those with tapering versus those who had continued the same drug doses.
 

Higher odds of flare with tapering

Tapering, compared with continuing with the same dose, was clearly associated with higher odds of flare at the next visit (11.4% with continuing vs. 17.0% with tapering; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.39; P = .0005). Flares among patients who tapered were also slightly more often severe than with continuing the same dose (21.5% of flares vs. 19.7%). The level of remission at the time of tapering also mattered. Of 2,095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41.1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28.4%) in remission, and 639 (30.5%) in complete remission. Tapering when in LLDAS or remission, compared with complete remission, was associated with a higher likelihood of flare by 1 year (LLDAS: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .029; and remission: OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.94; P = .013). Time to first flare followed the same pattern. Also, sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit and flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.

Take baseline disease status, hydroxychloroquine’s effect into account

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau underscored several factors that may soften the risk for flares seen with tapering. They pointed to higher baseline doses of prednisone and immunosuppressants (and thus likely more severe disease that is more likely to flare) in the patients with tapering. Also, the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index used in the study classifies some clinically insignificant flares as mild to moderate and ignores the benefit of tapering. (It classifies patients as having a severe flare even when starting a new immunosuppressant prescription, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, or both, in an effort to reduce corticosteroid use.) They wrote that the study did not assess the rate of clinically meaningful flares (“essentially renal flares”), nor did it highlight that the “tiny” increase in absolute risk of severe flares (from 2.2% to 3.7%) could be further contextualized by the offset of the smaller, unmeasured rate of clinically significant flares and the “extremely relevant” risk of concomitant damage from prolonged treatment.

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau urged hydroxychloroquine use for all patients unless clearly contraindicated. In their own research, they have detailed hydroxychloroquine benefits in reducing not only flare risk, but also comorbidities, damage, and mortality. In the current study, the prevalence of hydroxychloroquine use in all the patient visits was only 63.3%. “We can assume that if more patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine, both the number of flares and the difference between the two strategies would have been lower,” they wrote. They cited findings from a study of patients in remission for 2 years or longer in the Toronto Lupus Cohort in which a gradual taper of corticosteroids over 1 year was safe and feasible and resulted in less damage accrual at 24 months than not tapering. Optimizing tapering can minimize flare risk, they concluded.

McGill University Health Center

Tapering SLE medications always involves some chance of flare and has to be considered a calculated risk, Sasha Bernatsky, MD, the James McGill professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Long-term prednisone is not good for patients. I have heard it called ‘the miracle drug from hell’ – meaning that, yes, it controls disease, but at a cost of long-term complications. So we must be conscientious about tapering prednisone.” She observed that in the short-term, there may not be a huge risk to keeping a patient on an antimalarial and counseling patients to stay on it because their risk of flare is higher if they taper. Rheumatologists usually agree, however, that after 10 years or more, there is a real chance of retinal toxicity. “In our Montreal cohort, the risk of retinal toxicity was 5% after an average of 12.8 years of antimalarial use. My concern is that if a patient develops SLE in their 20s, how do we decide if we should keep them on an antimalarial for the next 60 or 70 years? If we keep them on the drug from age 25 to 45, and they then get retinal toxicity, they would essentially never be able to be on the drug again. So I do try to keep patients on the lowest dose of an antimalarial that is possible.”

Dr. Bernatsky pointed out further, “We think about tapering other immunosuppressants (such as methotrexate or mycophenolate or azathioprine) quite differently than prednisone tapering. We take our time a bit more, since many patients will tolerate being on standard doses of these drugs fairly well. If or when we do consider tapering these drugs, both our intuition and the literature suggests that someone with worse baseline disease activity or severity, who has needed a lot of steroids and multiple combinations of drugs to control disease, has a higher chance of flaring than someone with milder disease. As the editorial points out, lupus physicians (and their patients) need to think carefully about the patient’s risk profile, and be sure to tailor follow-up based on flare risk.”

Frank discussions with patients about the risks of tapering are needed, she said. “On one hand, there is consensus about how some aspects of lupus should be managed (for example, aggressive treatment of severe nephritis), but on the other hand, when it comes to long-term management and especially discussing tapering, we must have good discussions with patients. When a patient asks if they can taper a drug – many just lower or stop their drugs without asking – I am as honest as I can be, but ultimately have to admit any taper could be associated with a flare. It’s helpful to have actual figures to discuss with patients.”
 

No surprises

“This is an interesting study, which did not produce any surprises,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at University of Toronto and senior scientist at the university’s Schroeder Arthritis Institute, said when asked to comment. “We already knew from previous studies that abrupt withdrawal is not a good idea, and that if you taper when a patient is under conditions of remission, the rate of flare is actually lower than the usual rate of flare that occurs in people who continue on these medications. But the major limitation is that they did not specifically look at those who we would taper in clinical practice. In addition, they do not specify that the patients had to be on low-dose glucocorticoids before tapering, and they combined both immunosuppressive and steroids. It is not clear from the study what the excess flare rate was, or whether the flares were mild or severe. Most flares in patients with SLE are mild, consisting of skin and joint manifestations, while only a few patients have flares in kidney or neurologic manifestations.”

Dr. Gladman described her approach to tapering: “We aim for our patients to be taking no more than 5 mg of prednisone and to be in at least clinical remission with a SLEDAI-2K of 0 for at least 2 years before we would taper to glucocorticoids withdrawal. We always withdraw glucocorticoids first and immunosuppressives later, and keep patients on antimalarials the longest, unless there are specific side effects to the immunosuppressive or antimalarials which require their cessation earlier.”
 

Uncertainty persists

Other SLE experts weighing in confirmed the view that future research should aim to achieve clarity about the relative risks and benefits of tapering SLE drug regimens to maintain disease remission while minimizing potential for organ damage.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Steroids are our friend and our enemy,” Joan T. Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “If a person with lupus is in a lot of trouble, corticosteroids are almost universally a good option to get them out. But for too many decades, for too many patients, despite all the improvements we have made in better understanding the disease and developing some promising new treatments, we have yet to shed the inexorable toxicity in multiple organs of steroid dependence.” She continued, “Corticosteroids, even at low dose, may have broad-spectrum effects. But, in fact, so do many of the more ‘targeted’ agents. If all patients were lined up at the beginning of a study while being given azathioprine or a calcineurin inhibitor or belimumab at a stable, tolerable dose, you might see the same data if you tapered that agent down. What we really need is improved individualized guidance about when and how fast to remove immune modulators from stable patients with lupus without disturbing the balance that had been achieved in such a quiescent patient.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

That enduring uncertainty was echoed by Daniel J. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles: “The take-home message from this interesting paper,” he commented, “is that current lupus biomarkers are not adequate. They do not guide the practitioner well enough, so that all too often medication regimens are tapered even though the risks are not really well known. Also, there is evidence in the literature that fibrosis and ‘damage’ progress even if acute phase reactants such as sedimentation rate, [C-reactive protein], complement 3 and 4, and anti-dsDNA are normal. We don’t have a good metric to detect them.”

Dr. Cho and colleagues’ study was funded by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB. Dr. Gladman disclosed consulting and/or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

The question looms large for patients with stable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): to taper or not to taper corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy? For patients and the physicians treating them, the evidence points in both directions. Flares are exacerbated by tapering, but simultaneously organ damage is tempered. Where is the balance? What competing factors together inform decision-making?

A recent multinational, observational cohort study conducted by Jiacai Cho, MBBS, of National University Hospital, Singapore, and colleagues, and published in The Lancet Rheumatology concluded that, given the odds of excess flares associated with tapering of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE, drug tapering warrants careful consideration of risks and benefits and is best reserved for those in complete clinical and serological remission with stable disease for at least 6 months. However, in an accompanying editorial, Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, and Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, of the National Referral Center for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases at Cochin Hospital, Paris, and the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics at Paris City University, argued for tipping the scale back from some of those expressed cautions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In interviews, experts in the field expressed both strong appreciation for the cohort study and, like the editorialists, cognizance of its limitations.

Dr. Cho and colleagues recruited 3,002 adult patients with SLE (92.2% female, median age 39.5 years), from 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. They were receiving routine clinical care and had achieved stable disease in at least one of two or more visits. Stable disease was defined by meeting criteria for Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS; SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤ 4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤ 1, and prednisolone ≤ 7.5 mg/day), the 2021 DORIS definition of remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day), or DORIS complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day). Any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate) defined tapering. The investigators compared the odds of disease flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the visit following tapering among those with tapering versus those who had continued the same drug doses.
 

Higher odds of flare with tapering

Tapering, compared with continuing with the same dose, was clearly associated with higher odds of flare at the next visit (11.4% with continuing vs. 17.0% with tapering; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.39; P = .0005). Flares among patients who tapered were also slightly more often severe than with continuing the same dose (21.5% of flares vs. 19.7%). The level of remission at the time of tapering also mattered. Of 2,095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41.1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28.4%) in remission, and 639 (30.5%) in complete remission. Tapering when in LLDAS or remission, compared with complete remission, was associated with a higher likelihood of flare by 1 year (LLDAS: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .029; and remission: OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.94; P = .013). Time to first flare followed the same pattern. Also, sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit and flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.

Take baseline disease status, hydroxychloroquine’s effect into account

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau underscored several factors that may soften the risk for flares seen with tapering. They pointed to higher baseline doses of prednisone and immunosuppressants (and thus likely more severe disease that is more likely to flare) in the patients with tapering. Also, the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index used in the study classifies some clinically insignificant flares as mild to moderate and ignores the benefit of tapering. (It classifies patients as having a severe flare even when starting a new immunosuppressant prescription, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, or both, in an effort to reduce corticosteroid use.) They wrote that the study did not assess the rate of clinically meaningful flares (“essentially renal flares”), nor did it highlight that the “tiny” increase in absolute risk of severe flares (from 2.2% to 3.7%) could be further contextualized by the offset of the smaller, unmeasured rate of clinically significant flares and the “extremely relevant” risk of concomitant damage from prolonged treatment.

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau urged hydroxychloroquine use for all patients unless clearly contraindicated. In their own research, they have detailed hydroxychloroquine benefits in reducing not only flare risk, but also comorbidities, damage, and mortality. In the current study, the prevalence of hydroxychloroquine use in all the patient visits was only 63.3%. “We can assume that if more patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine, both the number of flares and the difference between the two strategies would have been lower,” they wrote. They cited findings from a study of patients in remission for 2 years or longer in the Toronto Lupus Cohort in which a gradual taper of corticosteroids over 1 year was safe and feasible and resulted in less damage accrual at 24 months than not tapering. Optimizing tapering can minimize flare risk, they concluded.

McGill University Health Center

Tapering SLE medications always involves some chance of flare and has to be considered a calculated risk, Sasha Bernatsky, MD, the James McGill professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Long-term prednisone is not good for patients. I have heard it called ‘the miracle drug from hell’ – meaning that, yes, it controls disease, but at a cost of long-term complications. So we must be conscientious about tapering prednisone.” She observed that in the short-term, there may not be a huge risk to keeping a patient on an antimalarial and counseling patients to stay on it because their risk of flare is higher if they taper. Rheumatologists usually agree, however, that after 10 years or more, there is a real chance of retinal toxicity. “In our Montreal cohort, the risk of retinal toxicity was 5% after an average of 12.8 years of antimalarial use. My concern is that if a patient develops SLE in their 20s, how do we decide if we should keep them on an antimalarial for the next 60 or 70 years? If we keep them on the drug from age 25 to 45, and they then get retinal toxicity, they would essentially never be able to be on the drug again. So I do try to keep patients on the lowest dose of an antimalarial that is possible.”

Dr. Bernatsky pointed out further, “We think about tapering other immunosuppressants (such as methotrexate or mycophenolate or azathioprine) quite differently than prednisone tapering. We take our time a bit more, since many patients will tolerate being on standard doses of these drugs fairly well. If or when we do consider tapering these drugs, both our intuition and the literature suggests that someone with worse baseline disease activity or severity, who has needed a lot of steroids and multiple combinations of drugs to control disease, has a higher chance of flaring than someone with milder disease. As the editorial points out, lupus physicians (and their patients) need to think carefully about the patient’s risk profile, and be sure to tailor follow-up based on flare risk.”

Frank discussions with patients about the risks of tapering are needed, she said. “On one hand, there is consensus about how some aspects of lupus should be managed (for example, aggressive treatment of severe nephritis), but on the other hand, when it comes to long-term management and especially discussing tapering, we must have good discussions with patients. When a patient asks if they can taper a drug – many just lower or stop their drugs without asking – I am as honest as I can be, but ultimately have to admit any taper could be associated with a flare. It’s helpful to have actual figures to discuss with patients.”
 

No surprises

“This is an interesting study, which did not produce any surprises,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at University of Toronto and senior scientist at the university’s Schroeder Arthritis Institute, said when asked to comment. “We already knew from previous studies that abrupt withdrawal is not a good idea, and that if you taper when a patient is under conditions of remission, the rate of flare is actually lower than the usual rate of flare that occurs in people who continue on these medications. But the major limitation is that they did not specifically look at those who we would taper in clinical practice. In addition, they do not specify that the patients had to be on low-dose glucocorticoids before tapering, and they combined both immunosuppressive and steroids. It is not clear from the study what the excess flare rate was, or whether the flares were mild or severe. Most flares in patients with SLE are mild, consisting of skin and joint manifestations, while only a few patients have flares in kidney or neurologic manifestations.”

Dr. Gladman described her approach to tapering: “We aim for our patients to be taking no more than 5 mg of prednisone and to be in at least clinical remission with a SLEDAI-2K of 0 for at least 2 years before we would taper to glucocorticoids withdrawal. We always withdraw glucocorticoids first and immunosuppressives later, and keep patients on antimalarials the longest, unless there are specific side effects to the immunosuppressive or antimalarials which require their cessation earlier.”
 

Uncertainty persists

Other SLE experts weighing in confirmed the view that future research should aim to achieve clarity about the relative risks and benefits of tapering SLE drug regimens to maintain disease remission while minimizing potential for organ damage.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Steroids are our friend and our enemy,” Joan T. Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “If a person with lupus is in a lot of trouble, corticosteroids are almost universally a good option to get them out. But for too many decades, for too many patients, despite all the improvements we have made in better understanding the disease and developing some promising new treatments, we have yet to shed the inexorable toxicity in multiple organs of steroid dependence.” She continued, “Corticosteroids, even at low dose, may have broad-spectrum effects. But, in fact, so do many of the more ‘targeted’ agents. If all patients were lined up at the beginning of a study while being given azathioprine or a calcineurin inhibitor or belimumab at a stable, tolerable dose, you might see the same data if you tapered that agent down. What we really need is improved individualized guidance about when and how fast to remove immune modulators from stable patients with lupus without disturbing the balance that had been achieved in such a quiescent patient.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

That enduring uncertainty was echoed by Daniel J. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles: “The take-home message from this interesting paper,” he commented, “is that current lupus biomarkers are not adequate. They do not guide the practitioner well enough, so that all too often medication regimens are tapered even though the risks are not really well known. Also, there is evidence in the literature that fibrosis and ‘damage’ progress even if acute phase reactants such as sedimentation rate, [C-reactive protein], complement 3 and 4, and anti-dsDNA are normal. We don’t have a good metric to detect them.”

Dr. Cho and colleagues’ study was funded by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB. Dr. Gladman disclosed consulting and/or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

It is well known that the best outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are achieved with a treat-to-target strategy, but recent research has also focused on tapering therapy, especially biologics, in patients who are in prolonged disease remission without synovitis. In the open-label, randomized, noninferiority ARCTIC REWIND trial, Lillegraven and colleagues looked at the effects of tapering tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in 84 patients at different sites in Norway. Patients who had been in remission for a year or more on stable therapy (including TNFi and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARD]) were included in the study. Of the 43 randomly assigned to tapering TNFi therapy, nearly two-thirds had a flare in 12 months of follow-up, compared with 5% in the stable TNFi group; thus, noninferiority of tapering TNFi was not supported. This study is small and seems to highlight a greater disparity between the two groups than expected from prior studies. Given the stark difference between the two groups, however, caution is advised in tapering TNFi therapy in patients with RA, even those in "deep remission." This information is reassuring in that most patients who flared had a good response to reinstating TNFi therapy, and it is helpful in counseling patients who prefer to try to reduce their medication burden despite the potential for flare.

The impact of chronic steroid use in RA has also received a lot of scrutiny in recent literature due to possible long-term side effects such as bone loss, hyperglycemia, and accelerated atherosclerotic disease. Palmowski and colleagues conducted a pooled analysis of several European randomized trials comparing the use of low-dose glucocorticoids (< 7.5 mg/d prednisone) vs placebo in combination with targeted therapy for RA. Data from over 1100 patients in five trials were analyzed. Over the course of 2 years, participants in both groups had gained weight, more so in the glucocorticoid group compared with the control group (1.8 kg vs 0.7 kg), with negligible effects on blood pressure. While use of moderate and high doses of glucocorticoids is not advisable for the long term, the use of low doses appears to be tolerable, with relatively minor effects on weight and blood pressure.

Given the chronic nature of RA and increasing incidence with age, comorbidities and multimorbidity (two or more comorbidities) are common in patients with RA. Stevens and colleagues used a national claims database to examine the burden of multimorbidity in people with RA and its association with sex and age in two different age groups (18-50 years and older than 51 years). Over 154,000 patients with RA were matched 1:1 to those without. The risk for multimorbidity was higher in women vs men with RA, though the absolute difference in risk was not large. The magnitude of these differences (between women and men, and between those with and without RA) was more pronounced in the younger age group and, as expected, decreased in the older age group. Of note, men with RA, compared with women with RA, had a higher risk for cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, high cholesterol, coronary artery disease, valvular disease, and heart failure. Women with RA had more psychological, neurologic, and comorbid noninflammatory musculoskeletal conditions, such as chronic lower back pain. These differences stress the need for attention to individualized care to improve patients' quality of life and reduce adverse effects on other areas of health.

It is well known that the best outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are achieved with a treat-to-target strategy, but recent research has also focused on tapering therapy, especially biologics, in patients who are in prolonged disease remission without synovitis. In the open-label, randomized, noninferiority ARCTIC REWIND trial, Lillegraven and colleagues looked at the effects of tapering tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in 84 patients at different sites in Norway. Patients who had been in remission for a year or more on stable therapy (including TNFi and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARD]) were included in the study. Of the 43 randomly assigned to tapering TNFi therapy, nearly two-thirds had a flare in 12 months of follow-up, compared with 5% in the stable TNFi group; thus, noninferiority of tapering TNFi was not supported. This study is small and seems to highlight a greater disparity between the two groups than expected from prior studies. Given the stark difference between the two groups, however, caution is advised in tapering TNFi therapy in patients with RA, even those in "deep remission." This information is reassuring in that most patients who flared had a good response to reinstating TNFi therapy, and it is helpful in counseling patients who prefer to try to reduce their medication burden despite the potential for flare.

The impact of chronic steroid use in RA has also received a lot of scrutiny in recent literature due to possible long-term side effects such as bone loss, hyperglycemia, and accelerated atherosclerotic disease. Palmowski and colleagues conducted a pooled analysis of several European randomized trials comparing the use of low-dose glucocorticoids (< 7.5 mg/d prednisone) vs placebo in combination with targeted therapy for RA. Data from over 1100 patients in five trials were analyzed. Over the course of 2 years, participants in both groups had gained weight, more so in the glucocorticoid group compared with the control group (1.8 kg vs 0.7 kg), with negligible effects on blood pressure. While use of moderate and high doses of glucocorticoids is not advisable for the long term, the use of low doses appears to be tolerable, with relatively minor effects on weight and blood pressure.

Given the chronic nature of RA and increasing incidence with age, comorbidities and multimorbidity (two or more comorbidities) are common in patients with RA. Stevens and colleagues used a national claims database to examine the burden of multimorbidity in people with RA and its association with sex and age in two different age groups (18-50 years and older than 51 years). Over 154,000 patients with RA were matched 1:1 to those without. The risk for multimorbidity was higher in women vs men with RA, though the absolute difference in risk was not large. The magnitude of these differences (between women and men, and between those with and without RA) was more pronounced in the younger age group and, as expected, decreased in the older age group. Of note, men with RA, compared with women with RA, had a higher risk for cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, high cholesterol, coronary artery disease, valvular disease, and heart failure. Women with RA had more psychological, neurologic, and comorbid noninflammatory musculoskeletal conditions, such as chronic lower back pain. These differences stress the need for attention to individualized care to improve patients' quality of life and reduce adverse effects on other areas of health.

It is well known that the best outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are achieved with a treat-to-target strategy, but recent research has also focused on tapering therapy, especially biologics, in patients who are in prolonged disease remission without synovitis. In the open-label, randomized, noninferiority ARCTIC REWIND trial, Lillegraven and colleagues looked at the effects of tapering tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in 84 patients at different sites in Norway. Patients who had been in remission for a year or more on stable therapy (including TNFi and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARD]) were included in the study. Of the 43 randomly assigned to tapering TNFi therapy, nearly two-thirds had a flare in 12 months of follow-up, compared with 5% in the stable TNFi group; thus, noninferiority of tapering TNFi was not supported. This study is small and seems to highlight a greater disparity between the two groups than expected from prior studies. Given the stark difference between the two groups, however, caution is advised in tapering TNFi therapy in patients with RA, even those in "deep remission." This information is reassuring in that most patients who flared had a good response to reinstating TNFi therapy, and it is helpful in counseling patients who prefer to try to reduce their medication burden despite the potential for flare.

The impact of chronic steroid use in RA has also received a lot of scrutiny in recent literature due to possible long-term side effects such as bone loss, hyperglycemia, and accelerated atherosclerotic disease. Palmowski and colleagues conducted a pooled analysis of several European randomized trials comparing the use of low-dose glucocorticoids (< 7.5 mg/d prednisone) vs placebo in combination with targeted therapy for RA. Data from over 1100 patients in five trials were analyzed. Over the course of 2 years, participants in both groups had gained weight, more so in the glucocorticoid group compared with the control group (1.8 kg vs 0.7 kg), with negligible effects on blood pressure. While use of moderate and high doses of glucocorticoids is not advisable for the long term, the use of low doses appears to be tolerable, with relatively minor effects on weight and blood pressure.

Given the chronic nature of RA and increasing incidence with age, comorbidities and multimorbidity (two or more comorbidities) are common in patients with RA. Stevens and colleagues used a national claims database to examine the burden of multimorbidity in people with RA and its association with sex and age in two different age groups (18-50 years and older than 51 years). Over 154,000 patients with RA were matched 1:1 to those without. The risk for multimorbidity was higher in women vs men with RA, though the absolute difference in risk was not large. The magnitude of these differences (between women and men, and between those with and without RA) was more pronounced in the younger age group and, as expected, decreased in the older age group. Of note, men with RA, compared with women with RA, had a higher risk for cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, high cholesterol, coronary artery disease, valvular disease, and heart failure. Women with RA had more psychological, neurologic, and comorbid noninflammatory musculoskeletal conditions, such as chronic lower back pain. These differences stress the need for attention to individualized care to improve patients' quality of life and reduce adverse effects on other areas of health.

A revolutionary treatment for cancers may also be able to treat and reset the immune system to provide long-term remission or possibly even cure certain autoimmune diseases.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has offered a novel approach to treating hematologic cancers since 2017, but there are early signs that these cellular immunotherapies could be repurposed for B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

In September of last year, researchers in Germany reported that five patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treated with CAR T-cell therapy all achieved drug-free remission. At the time of publication, no patients had relapsed for up to 17 months after treatment. The authors described seroconversion of antinuclear antibodies in two patients with the longest follow-up, “indicating that abrogation of autoimmune B-cell clones may lead to a more widespread correction of autoimmunity,” the researchers write.

In another case study published in June, researchers used CD-19 targeted CAR-T cells to treat a 41-year-old man with refractory antisynthetase syndrome with progressive myositis and interstitial lung disease. Six months after treatment, there were no signs of myositis on MRI and a chest CT scan showed full regression of alveolitis.

John Hopkins Medicine

Since then, two biotechnology companies – Cabaletta Bio in Philadelphia and Kyverna Therapeutics in Emeryville, Calif. – have already been granted fast-track designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CAR T-cell therapy for SLE and lupus nephritis. Bristol-Myers Squibb is also conducting a phase 1 trial in patients with severe, refractory SLE. Several biotechnology companies and hospitals in China are also conducting clinical trials for SLE. But this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding cellular therapies for autoimmune disease, said Max Konig, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It’s an incredibly exciting time. It’s unprecedented in the history of autoimmunity,” he noted.
 

A ‘reboot’ for the immune system

B-cell targeted therapies have been around since the early 2000s with drugs like rituximab, a monoclonal antibody medication that targets CD20, an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells. The CAR T cells currently available target another surface antigen, CD19, and are a much more potent therapy. Both are effective at depleting B cells in blood, but these engineered CD19-targeted T cells can reach B cells sitting in tissues in a way that antibody therapies cannot, Dr. Konig explained.

“If you have a patient with myositis, for example, where autoreactive B cells are sitting in the inflamed muscle, or a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, where you have disease-relevant B cells in hard-to-reach tissues like the synovium, those cells are much harder to deplete with an antibody, compared to a T cell that evolved to surveil and effectively kill in all tissues,” he explained.

In this process, T cells are collected from patients via leukapheresis and then re-engineered to express chimeric antigen receptors. A few days before these modified T cells are infused back into the patient, the patients are given a low-dose chemotherapy (lymphodepletion) regimen to help increase the effectiveness of the therapy. The one-time infusion is generally given on an inpatient basis, and patients are then monitored in hospital for side effects.

Once B cells are depleted, disease symptoms improve. But in the case studies published to date, once B cells re-emerge, they are naïve and no longer producing autoreactive B cells.
 

“Maybe it’s like a tabula rasa: You wipe [the B cells] out and start with a clean slate. Then, the immune system reboots, and now it’s working, whereas before it was messed up,” said Carl June, MD, who directs the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. June and his research team led the development of CAR T-cell therapies for blood cancers.

The findings suggest that autoantibodies “might not be hardwired into the immune system,” he said.

But Dr. Konig stressed that we are still in the early days of clinical trials, and more research is necessary to understand the safety and efficacy of these therapies.

“There’s an incredible buzz around CAR T cells at the moment in rheumatology, which is great because I think that’s where the future is,” he said. “But we still need to learn how to appropriately apply these therapies in randomized, controlled trials.”

So far, the evidence behind CD19 CAR T-cell therapies in autoimmune disease is from case studies and phase 1 trials in a very small number of selected patients. (The upcoming Cabaletta and Kyverna trials in lupus will also be small, consisting of 12 patients each.)
 

Risks of intensive therapy

But while these therapies show promise, the process is very intensive. The lymphodepleting regimen increases the risk for infection and patients are commonly hospitalized for a week or more following infusion for toxicity monitoring. Serious adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur days to weeks after CAR T-cell infusion. In the five-patient case series reported in 2022, patients were hospitalized for 10 days following treatment.

The patient with antisynthetase syndrome, as well as three of five patients in the SLE case series study experienced mild CRS following infusion. Patients are also at a high risk for infection, as the engineered T cells target all B cells, not just the autoreactive immune cells.

The inability to differentiate between disease-causing and protective immune cells is an issue for all currently available drugs treating autoimmune disease, Dr. Konig said. But scientists are already working on how to make these potent cellular therapies safer and more precise.
 

Alternatives to standard CAR T-cell therapies

Engineering T cells with RNA is a new approach to limit the side effects and toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy, said Chris Jewell, PhD, the chief scientific officer at Cartesian Therapeutics, a biotechnology company based in Gaithersburg, Md. The company’s RNA CAR T-cell (rCAR-T) therapy – called DESCARTES-08 – is in phase 2 clinical trials for treatment of myasthenia gravis. Once these rCAR-T cells are infused in patients, as they divide, the RNAnaturally decays, he explained, meaning that after a certain point, the CAR is no longer expressed.

Cartesian Therapeutics

DESCARTES-08 targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is primarily expressed on plasma cells, rather than all B cells, Dr. Jewell said.

“Targeting BCMA, we actually have a more selective profile,” he explained. “We are targeting the cells primarily responsible for the pathogenicity; many plasma cells – such as long-lived plasma cells – also take a long time to repopulate.”

This therapy also does not require lymphodepletion prior to infusion and can be done in an outpatient setting. The therapy is given in multiple infusions, once per week.

In the most recent clinical trial, patients with myasthenia gravis received six infusions over 6 weeks and experienced notable decreases in myasthenia gravis severity scale at up to 9 months of follow-up.

Abata Therapeutics

While standard CAR T-cell therapies under clinical investigational up to now all use effector T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) can also be engineered to target autoimmune disease. Abata Therapeutics, based in Boston, is using this approach for therapies for progressive multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. These engineered Tregs express a T-cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes tissue-specific antigens and suppress inflammation at the site of the disease. “Treg-based cell therapies are really harnessing the natural power of regulatory cells to reset immune tolerance and recalibrate the immune system,” said their chief medical officer, Leonard Dragone, MD, PhD.

These therapies are derived from terminally differentiated cells that have limited capacity to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, Dr. Dragone explained. “CRS is difficult to envision from engineered Treg products and hasn’t been observed in any clinical experience with polyclonal Tregs,” he said.

This approach also does not require lymphodepletion prior to treatment. The company’s Treg cellular therapy for progressive MS is currently in investigational new drug-enabling studies, and they aim to dose their first patients in 2024.
 

Precision immunotherapy

For B-cell driven autoimmune diseases where the autoantibody is known, researchers have begun to re-engineer T cells to recognize only autoreactive B cells. While CD19 CAR T cells act more like a sledgehammer, these precision cellular immunotherapies are “like a razor’s strike,” Dr. June said.

University of Pennsylvania

“The chimeric autoantibody receptor (CAAR) approach targets autoantibodies that are expressed only on the surface of autoimmune B cells and are not expressed on normal B cells, which ideally should lead to precision targeting of just the cells that cause autoimmune disease,” explained Aimee Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the Penn Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her research team used this approach to develop a treatment for mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering disease of mucous membranes driven by autoantibodies against desmoglein 3.

“The current standard of care for pemphigus is to treat with steroids and rituximab, an infusion therapy that results in global, but temporary, B-cell depletion,” she said. “By expressing desmoglein 3 (DSG3) on the surface of the CAAR T-cell therapy, we target just the anti-DSG3 B cells that cause disease in mucosal pemphigus vulgaris and spare the healthy B cells.”

The therapy – called DSG3-CAART – is being developed by Cabaletta Bio and is now in phase 1 clinical trials. The approach is also being investigated to treat certain types of myasthenia gravis and membranous nephropathy.

Dr. Konig’s lab at Johns Hopkins developed and is now exploring a new precision cellular immunotherapy approach, chimeric autoantigen-T cell receptor (CATCR) T-cell therapy, to treat antiphospholipid syndrome, which is in preclinical stages. In this approach, Dr. Konig and his team are “re-engineering the natural T-cell receptor to selectively kill disease-causing B cells that drive antiphospholipid syndrome,” he explained.

He anticipates the CD19 CAR T-cell therapies currently in clinical trials will help to pave the way for this new generation of precision cellular therapies. The ultimate goal of these therapies, he said, is to uncouple therapeutic potency from infection risk.

“That’s really the holy grail in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. It’s tantalizingly close, but we’re not there yet.”

Dr. June is an inventor on patents and/or patent applications licensed to Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research and receives license revenue from such licenses. Dr. June is a scientific founder of Tmunity Therapeutics and Capstan Therapeutics and is a member of the scientific advisory boards of AC Immune SA, Alaunos, BlueSphere Bio, Cabaletta, Carisma, Cartography Biosciences, Cellares, Celldex, Decheng Capital, Poseida, Verismo, and WIRB-Copernicus Group. Dr. Konig is a consultant for argenx and Revel and is listed as inventor for patent applications filed by John Hopkins University. Dr. Payne holds equity, grants, payments, and patent licensing from Cabaletta Bio and consults for Janssen.

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

A revolutionary treatment for cancers may also be able to treat and reset the immune system to provide long-term remission or possibly even cure certain autoimmune diseases.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has offered a novel approach to treating hematologic cancers since 2017, but there are early signs that these cellular immunotherapies could be repurposed for B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

In September of last year, researchers in Germany reported that five patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treated with CAR T-cell therapy all achieved drug-free remission. At the time of publication, no patients had relapsed for up to 17 months after treatment. The authors described seroconversion of antinuclear antibodies in two patients with the longest follow-up, “indicating that abrogation of autoimmune B-cell clones may lead to a more widespread correction of autoimmunity,” the researchers write.

In another case study published in June, researchers used CD-19 targeted CAR-T cells to treat a 41-year-old man with refractory antisynthetase syndrome with progressive myositis and interstitial lung disease. Six months after treatment, there were no signs of myositis on MRI and a chest CT scan showed full regression of alveolitis.

John Hopkins Medicine

Since then, two biotechnology companies – Cabaletta Bio in Philadelphia and Kyverna Therapeutics in Emeryville, Calif. – have already been granted fast-track designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CAR T-cell therapy for SLE and lupus nephritis. Bristol-Myers Squibb is also conducting a phase 1 trial in patients with severe, refractory SLE. Several biotechnology companies and hospitals in China are also conducting clinical trials for SLE. But this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding cellular therapies for autoimmune disease, said Max Konig, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It’s an incredibly exciting time. It’s unprecedented in the history of autoimmunity,” he noted.
 

A ‘reboot’ for the immune system

B-cell targeted therapies have been around since the early 2000s with drugs like rituximab, a monoclonal antibody medication that targets CD20, an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells. The CAR T cells currently available target another surface antigen, CD19, and are a much more potent therapy. Both are effective at depleting B cells in blood, but these engineered CD19-targeted T cells can reach B cells sitting in tissues in a way that antibody therapies cannot, Dr. Konig explained.

“If you have a patient with myositis, for example, where autoreactive B cells are sitting in the inflamed muscle, or a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, where you have disease-relevant B cells in hard-to-reach tissues like the synovium, those cells are much harder to deplete with an antibody, compared to a T cell that evolved to surveil and effectively kill in all tissues,” he explained.

In this process, T cells are collected from patients via leukapheresis and then re-engineered to express chimeric antigen receptors. A few days before these modified T cells are infused back into the patient, the patients are given a low-dose chemotherapy (lymphodepletion) regimen to help increase the effectiveness of the therapy. The one-time infusion is generally given on an inpatient basis, and patients are then monitored in hospital for side effects.

Once B cells are depleted, disease symptoms improve. But in the case studies published to date, once B cells re-emerge, they are naïve and no longer producing autoreactive B cells.
 

“Maybe it’s like a tabula rasa: You wipe [the B cells] out and start with a clean slate. Then, the immune system reboots, and now it’s working, whereas before it was messed up,” said Carl June, MD, who directs the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. June and his research team led the development of CAR T-cell therapies for blood cancers.

The findings suggest that autoantibodies “might not be hardwired into the immune system,” he said.

But Dr. Konig stressed that we are still in the early days of clinical trials, and more research is necessary to understand the safety and efficacy of these therapies.

“There’s an incredible buzz around CAR T cells at the moment in rheumatology, which is great because I think that’s where the future is,” he said. “But we still need to learn how to appropriately apply these therapies in randomized, controlled trials.”

So far, the evidence behind CD19 CAR T-cell therapies in autoimmune disease is from case studies and phase 1 trials in a very small number of selected patients. (The upcoming Cabaletta and Kyverna trials in lupus will also be small, consisting of 12 patients each.)
 

Risks of intensive therapy

But while these therapies show promise, the process is very intensive. The lymphodepleting regimen increases the risk for infection and patients are commonly hospitalized for a week or more following infusion for toxicity monitoring. Serious adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur days to weeks after CAR T-cell infusion. In the five-patient case series reported in 2022, patients were hospitalized for 10 days following treatment.

The patient with antisynthetase syndrome, as well as three of five patients in the SLE case series study experienced mild CRS following infusion. Patients are also at a high risk for infection, as the engineered T cells target all B cells, not just the autoreactive immune cells.

The inability to differentiate between disease-causing and protective immune cells is an issue for all currently available drugs treating autoimmune disease, Dr. Konig said. But scientists are already working on how to make these potent cellular therapies safer and more precise.
 

Alternatives to standard CAR T-cell therapies

Engineering T cells with RNA is a new approach to limit the side effects and toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy, said Chris Jewell, PhD, the chief scientific officer at Cartesian Therapeutics, a biotechnology company based in Gaithersburg, Md. The company’s RNA CAR T-cell (rCAR-T) therapy – called DESCARTES-08 – is in phase 2 clinical trials for treatment of myasthenia gravis. Once these rCAR-T cells are infused in patients, as they divide, the RNAnaturally decays, he explained, meaning that after a certain point, the CAR is no longer expressed.

Cartesian Therapeutics

DESCARTES-08 targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is primarily expressed on plasma cells, rather than all B cells, Dr. Jewell said.

“Targeting BCMA, we actually have a more selective profile,” he explained. “We are targeting the cells primarily responsible for the pathogenicity; many plasma cells – such as long-lived plasma cells – also take a long time to repopulate.”

This therapy also does not require lymphodepletion prior to infusion and can be done in an outpatient setting. The therapy is given in multiple infusions, once per week.

In the most recent clinical trial, patients with myasthenia gravis received six infusions over 6 weeks and experienced notable decreases in myasthenia gravis severity scale at up to 9 months of follow-up.

Abata Therapeutics

While standard CAR T-cell therapies under clinical investigational up to now all use effector T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) can also be engineered to target autoimmune disease. Abata Therapeutics, based in Boston, is using this approach for therapies for progressive multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. These engineered Tregs express a T-cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes tissue-specific antigens and suppress inflammation at the site of the disease. “Treg-based cell therapies are really harnessing the natural power of regulatory cells to reset immune tolerance and recalibrate the immune system,” said their chief medical officer, Leonard Dragone, MD, PhD.

These therapies are derived from terminally differentiated cells that have limited capacity to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, Dr. Dragone explained. “CRS is difficult to envision from engineered Treg products and hasn’t been observed in any clinical experience with polyclonal Tregs,” he said.

This approach also does not require lymphodepletion prior to treatment. The company’s Treg cellular therapy for progressive MS is currently in investigational new drug-enabling studies, and they aim to dose their first patients in 2024.
 

Precision immunotherapy

For B-cell driven autoimmune diseases where the autoantibody is known, researchers have begun to re-engineer T cells to recognize only autoreactive B cells. While CD19 CAR T cells act more like a sledgehammer, these precision cellular immunotherapies are “like a razor’s strike,” Dr. June said.

University of Pennsylvania

“The chimeric autoantibody receptor (CAAR) approach targets autoantibodies that are expressed only on the surface of autoimmune B cells and are not expressed on normal B cells, which ideally should lead to precision targeting of just the cells that cause autoimmune disease,” explained Aimee Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the Penn Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her research team used this approach to develop a treatment for mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering disease of mucous membranes driven by autoantibodies against desmoglein 3.

“The current standard of care for pemphigus is to treat with steroids and rituximab, an infusion therapy that results in global, but temporary, B-cell depletion,” she said. “By expressing desmoglein 3 (DSG3) on the surface of the CAAR T-cell therapy, we target just the anti-DSG3 B cells that cause disease in mucosal pemphigus vulgaris and spare the healthy B cells.”

The therapy – called DSG3-CAART – is being developed by Cabaletta Bio and is now in phase 1 clinical trials. The approach is also being investigated to treat certain types of myasthenia gravis and membranous nephropathy.

Dr. Konig’s lab at Johns Hopkins developed and is now exploring a new precision cellular immunotherapy approach, chimeric autoantigen-T cell receptor (CATCR) T-cell therapy, to treat antiphospholipid syndrome, which is in preclinical stages. In this approach, Dr. Konig and his team are “re-engineering the natural T-cell receptor to selectively kill disease-causing B cells that drive antiphospholipid syndrome,” he explained.

He anticipates the CD19 CAR T-cell therapies currently in clinical trials will help to pave the way for this new generation of precision cellular therapies. The ultimate goal of these therapies, he said, is to uncouple therapeutic potency from infection risk.

“That’s really the holy grail in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. It’s tantalizingly close, but we’re not there yet.”

Dr. June is an inventor on patents and/or patent applications licensed to Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research and receives license revenue from such licenses. Dr. June is a scientific founder of Tmunity Therapeutics and Capstan Therapeutics and is a member of the scientific advisory boards of AC Immune SA, Alaunos, BlueSphere Bio, Cabaletta, Carisma, Cartography Biosciences, Cellares, Celldex, Decheng Capital, Poseida, Verismo, and WIRB-Copernicus Group. Dr. Konig is a consultant for argenx and Revel and is listed as inventor for patent applications filed by John Hopkins University. Dr. Payne holds equity, grants, payments, and patent licensing from Cabaletta Bio and consults for Janssen.

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

A revolutionary treatment for cancers may also be able to treat and reset the immune system to provide long-term remission or possibly even cure certain autoimmune diseases.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has offered a novel approach to treating hematologic cancers since 2017, but there are early signs that these cellular immunotherapies could be repurposed for B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

In September of last year, researchers in Germany reported that five patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treated with CAR T-cell therapy all achieved drug-free remission. At the time of publication, no patients had relapsed for up to 17 months after treatment. The authors described seroconversion of antinuclear antibodies in two patients with the longest follow-up, “indicating that abrogation of autoimmune B-cell clones may lead to a more widespread correction of autoimmunity,” the researchers write.

In another case study published in June, researchers used CD-19 targeted CAR-T cells to treat a 41-year-old man with refractory antisynthetase syndrome with progressive myositis and interstitial lung disease. Six months after treatment, there were no signs of myositis on MRI and a chest CT scan showed full regression of alveolitis.

John Hopkins Medicine

Since then, two biotechnology companies – Cabaletta Bio in Philadelphia and Kyverna Therapeutics in Emeryville, Calif. – have already been granted fast-track designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CAR T-cell therapy for SLE and lupus nephritis. Bristol-Myers Squibb is also conducting a phase 1 trial in patients with severe, refractory SLE. Several biotechnology companies and hospitals in China are also conducting clinical trials for SLE. But this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding cellular therapies for autoimmune disease, said Max Konig, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It’s an incredibly exciting time. It’s unprecedented in the history of autoimmunity,” he noted.
 

A ‘reboot’ for the immune system

B-cell targeted therapies have been around since the early 2000s with drugs like rituximab, a monoclonal antibody medication that targets CD20, an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells. The CAR T cells currently available target another surface antigen, CD19, and are a much more potent therapy. Both are effective at depleting B cells in blood, but these engineered CD19-targeted T cells can reach B cells sitting in tissues in a way that antibody therapies cannot, Dr. Konig explained.

“If you have a patient with myositis, for example, where autoreactive B cells are sitting in the inflamed muscle, or a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, where you have disease-relevant B cells in hard-to-reach tissues like the synovium, those cells are much harder to deplete with an antibody, compared to a T cell that evolved to surveil and effectively kill in all tissues,” he explained.

In this process, T cells are collected from patients via leukapheresis and then re-engineered to express chimeric antigen receptors. A few days before these modified T cells are infused back into the patient, the patients are given a low-dose chemotherapy (lymphodepletion) regimen to help increase the effectiveness of the therapy. The one-time infusion is generally given on an inpatient basis, and patients are then monitored in hospital for side effects.

Once B cells are depleted, disease symptoms improve. But in the case studies published to date, once B cells re-emerge, they are naïve and no longer producing autoreactive B cells.
 

“Maybe it’s like a tabula rasa: You wipe [the B cells] out and start with a clean slate. Then, the immune system reboots, and now it’s working, whereas before it was messed up,” said Carl June, MD, who directs the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. June and his research team led the development of CAR T-cell therapies for blood cancers.

The findings suggest that autoantibodies “might not be hardwired into the immune system,” he said.

But Dr. Konig stressed that we are still in the early days of clinical trials, and more research is necessary to understand the safety and efficacy of these therapies.

“There’s an incredible buzz around CAR T cells at the moment in rheumatology, which is great because I think that’s where the future is,” he said. “But we still need to learn how to appropriately apply these therapies in randomized, controlled trials.”

So far, the evidence behind CD19 CAR T-cell therapies in autoimmune disease is from case studies and phase 1 trials in a very small number of selected patients. (The upcoming Cabaletta and Kyverna trials in lupus will also be small, consisting of 12 patients each.)
 

Risks of intensive therapy

But while these therapies show promise, the process is very intensive. The lymphodepleting regimen increases the risk for infection and patients are commonly hospitalized for a week or more following infusion for toxicity monitoring. Serious adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur days to weeks after CAR T-cell infusion. In the five-patient case series reported in 2022, patients were hospitalized for 10 days following treatment.

The patient with antisynthetase syndrome, as well as three of five patients in the SLE case series study experienced mild CRS following infusion. Patients are also at a high risk for infection, as the engineered T cells target all B cells, not just the autoreactive immune cells.

The inability to differentiate between disease-causing and protective immune cells is an issue for all currently available drugs treating autoimmune disease, Dr. Konig said. But scientists are already working on how to make these potent cellular therapies safer and more precise.
 

Alternatives to standard CAR T-cell therapies

Engineering T cells with RNA is a new approach to limit the side effects and toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy, said Chris Jewell, PhD, the chief scientific officer at Cartesian Therapeutics, a biotechnology company based in Gaithersburg, Md. The company’s RNA CAR T-cell (rCAR-T) therapy – called DESCARTES-08 – is in phase 2 clinical trials for treatment of myasthenia gravis. Once these rCAR-T cells are infused in patients, as they divide, the RNAnaturally decays, he explained, meaning that after a certain point, the CAR is no longer expressed.

Cartesian Therapeutics

DESCARTES-08 targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is primarily expressed on plasma cells, rather than all B cells, Dr. Jewell said.

“Targeting BCMA, we actually have a more selective profile,” he explained. “We are targeting the cells primarily responsible for the pathogenicity; many plasma cells – such as long-lived plasma cells – also take a long time to repopulate.”

This therapy also does not require lymphodepletion prior to infusion and can be done in an outpatient setting. The therapy is given in multiple infusions, once per week.

In the most recent clinical trial, patients with myasthenia gravis received six infusions over 6 weeks and experienced notable decreases in myasthenia gravis severity scale at up to 9 months of follow-up.

Abata Therapeutics

While standard CAR T-cell therapies under clinical investigational up to now all use effector T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) can also be engineered to target autoimmune disease. Abata Therapeutics, based in Boston, is using this approach for therapies for progressive multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. These engineered Tregs express a T-cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes tissue-specific antigens and suppress inflammation at the site of the disease. “Treg-based cell therapies are really harnessing the natural power of regulatory cells to reset immune tolerance and recalibrate the immune system,” said their chief medical officer, Leonard Dragone, MD, PhD.

These therapies are derived from terminally differentiated cells that have limited capacity to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, Dr. Dragone explained. “CRS is difficult to envision from engineered Treg products and hasn’t been observed in any clinical experience with polyclonal Tregs,” he said.

This approach also does not require lymphodepletion prior to treatment. The company’s Treg cellular therapy for progressive MS is currently in investigational new drug-enabling studies, and they aim to dose their first patients in 2024.
 

Precision immunotherapy

For B-cell driven autoimmune diseases where the autoantibody is known, researchers have begun to re-engineer T cells to recognize only autoreactive B cells. While CD19 CAR T cells act more like a sledgehammer, these precision cellular immunotherapies are “like a razor’s strike,” Dr. June said.

University of Pennsylvania

“The chimeric autoantibody receptor (CAAR) approach targets autoantibodies that are expressed only on the surface of autoimmune B cells and are not expressed on normal B cells, which ideally should lead to precision targeting of just the cells that cause autoimmune disease,” explained Aimee Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the Penn Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her research team used this approach to develop a treatment for mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering disease of mucous membranes driven by autoantibodies against desmoglein 3.

“The current standard of care for pemphigus is to treat with steroids and rituximab, an infusion therapy that results in global, but temporary, B-cell depletion,” she said. “By expressing desmoglein 3 (DSG3) on the surface of the CAAR T-cell therapy, we target just the anti-DSG3 B cells that cause disease in mucosal pemphigus vulgaris and spare the healthy B cells.”

The therapy – called DSG3-CAART – is being developed by Cabaletta Bio and is now in phase 1 clinical trials. The approach is also being investigated to treat certain types of myasthenia gravis and membranous nephropathy.

Dr. Konig’s lab at Johns Hopkins developed and is now exploring a new precision cellular immunotherapy approach, chimeric autoantigen-T cell receptor (CATCR) T-cell therapy, to treat antiphospholipid syndrome, which is in preclinical stages. In this approach, Dr. Konig and his team are “re-engineering the natural T-cell receptor to selectively kill disease-causing B cells that drive antiphospholipid syndrome,” he explained.

He anticipates the CD19 CAR T-cell therapies currently in clinical trials will help to pave the way for this new generation of precision cellular therapies. The ultimate goal of these therapies, he said, is to uncouple therapeutic potency from infection risk.

“That’s really the holy grail in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. It’s tantalizingly close, but we’re not there yet.”

Dr. June is an inventor on patents and/or patent applications licensed to Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research and receives license revenue from such licenses. Dr. June is a scientific founder of Tmunity Therapeutics and Capstan Therapeutics and is a member of the scientific advisory boards of AC Immune SA, Alaunos, BlueSphere Bio, Cabaletta, Carisma, Cartography Biosciences, Cellares, Celldex, Decheng Capital, Poseida, Verismo, and WIRB-Copernicus Group. Dr. Konig is a consultant for argenx and Revel and is listed as inventor for patent applications filed by John Hopkins University. Dr. Payne holds equity, grants, payments, and patent licensing from Cabaletta Bio and consults for Janssen.

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

Some physicians are frustrated that key information about implantable medical devices rarely makes it into electronic health records, despite a 10-year mandate on manufacturers to label these products with identifiers.

As a result of this siloing of information, patients are not getting the expected benefits of a regulation finalized over a decade ago by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In 2013, the agency ordered companies to include unique device identifiers (UDIs) in plain-text and barcode format on some device labels, starting with implanted devices that are considered life-sustaining. The FDA said that tracking of UDI information would speed detection of complications linked to devices.

But identifiers are rarely on devices. At the time of the regulation creation, the FDA also said it expected this data would be integrated into EHRs. But only a few pioneer organizations such as Duke University and Mercy Health have so far attempted to track any UDI data in an organized way, researchers say.

Richard J. Kovacs, MD, the chief medical officer of the American College of Cardiology, contrasted the lack of useful implementation of UDI data with the speedy transfers of information that happen routinely in other industries. For example, employees of car rental agencies use handheld devices to gather detailed information about the vehicles being returned.

“But if you go to an emergency room with a medical device in your body, no one knows what it is or where it came from or anything about it,” Dr. Kovacs said in an interview.

Many physicians with expertise in device research have pushed for years to have insurers like Medicare require identification information on medical claims.

Even researchers face multiple obstacles in trying to investigate how well UDIs have been incorporated into EHRs and outcomes tied to certain devices.

In August, a Harvard team published a study in JAMA Internal Medicine, attempting to analyze the risks of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) devices. They reported an 11.6% risk for serious blood leaks with AFX Endovascular AAA System aneurysm devices, more than double the 5.7% risk estimated for competing products. The team selected EVAR devices for the study due in part to their known safety concerns. Endologix, the maker of the devices, declined to comment for this story.

The Harvard team used data from the Veterans Affairs health system, which is considered more well organized than most other health systems. But UDI information was found for only 19 of the 13,941 patients whose records were studied. In those cases, only partial information was included.

The researchers developed natural language processing tools, which they used to scrounge clinical notes for information about which devices patients received.

Using this method isn’t feasible for most clinicians, given that records from independent hospitals might not provide this kind of data and descriptions to search, according to the authors of an editorial accompanying the paper. Those researchers urged Congress to pass a law mandating inclusion of UDIs for all devices on claims forms as a condition for reimbursement by federal health care programs.

Setback for advocates

The movement toward UDI suffered a setback in June.

An influential, but little known federal advisory panel, the National Committee on Vital Health Statistics (NCVHS), opted to not recommend use of this information in claims, saying the FDA should consider the matter further.

Gaining an NCVHS recommendation would have been a win, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), and Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), in a December 2022 letter to the panel.

Including UDI data would let researchers track patients’ interactions with a health system and could be used to establish population-level correlations between a particular device and a long-term outcome or side effect, the lawmakers said.

That view had the support of at least one major maker of devices, Cook Group, which sells products for a variety of specialties, including cardiology.

In a comment to NCVHS, Cook urged for the inclusion identifiers in Medicare claims.

“While some have argued that the UDI is better suited for inclusion in the electronic health records, Cook believes this argument sets up a false choice between the two,” wrote Stephen L. Ferguson, JD, the chairman of Cook’s board. “Inclusion of the UDI in both electronic health records and claims forms will lead to a more robust system of real-world data.”

In contrast, AdvaMed, the trade group for device makers, told the NCVHS that it did not support adding the information to payment claims submissions, instead just supporting the inclusion in EHRs.

Dr. Kovacs of the ACC said one potential drawback to more transparency could be challenges in interpreting reports of complications in certain cases, at least initially. Reports about a flaw or even a suspected flaw in a device might lead patients to become concerned about their implanted devices, potentially registering unfounded complaints.

But this concern can be addressed through using “scientific rigor and safeguards” and is outweighed by the potential safety benefits for patients, Dr. Kovacs said.

Patients should ask health care systems to track and share information about their implanted devices, Dr. Kovacs suggested.

“I feel it would be my right to demand that that device information follows my electronic medical record, so that it’s readily available to anyone who’s taking care of me,” Dr. Kovacs said. “They would know what it is that’s in me, whether it’s a lens in my eye or a prosthesis in my hip or a highly complicated implantable cardiac electronic device.”

The Harvard study was supported by the FDA and National Institutes of Health. Authors of the study reported receiving fees from the FDA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Authors of the editorial reported past and present connections with F-Prime Capital, FDA, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures, as well being an expert witness at in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen. Authors of the Viewpoint reported past and present connections with the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), which is part of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC); AIM North America UDI Advisory Committee, Mass General Brigham, Arnold Ventures; the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review California Technology Assessment Forum; Yale University, Johnson & Johnson, FD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; as well as having been an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against.

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

Some physicians are frustrated that key information about implantable medical devices rarely makes it into electronic health records, despite a 10-year mandate on manufacturers to label these products with identifiers.

As a result of this siloing of information, patients are not getting the expected benefits of a regulation finalized over a decade ago by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In 2013, the agency ordered companies to include unique device identifiers (UDIs) in plain-text and barcode format on some device labels, starting with implanted devices that are considered life-sustaining. The FDA said that tracking of UDI information would speed detection of complications linked to devices.

But identifiers are rarely on devices. At the time of the regulation creation, the FDA also said it expected this data would be integrated into EHRs. But only a few pioneer organizations such as Duke University and Mercy Health have so far attempted to track any UDI data in an organized way, researchers say.

Richard J. Kovacs, MD, the chief medical officer of the American College of Cardiology, contrasted the lack of useful implementation of UDI data with the speedy transfers of information that happen routinely in other industries. For example, employees of car rental agencies use handheld devices to gather detailed information about the vehicles being returned.

“But if you go to an emergency room with a medical device in your body, no one knows what it is or where it came from or anything about it,” Dr. Kovacs said in an interview.

Many physicians with expertise in device research have pushed for years to have insurers like Medicare require identification information on medical claims.

Even researchers face multiple obstacles in trying to investigate how well UDIs have been incorporated into EHRs and outcomes tied to certain devices.

In August, a Harvard team published a study in JAMA Internal Medicine, attempting to analyze the risks of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) devices. They reported an 11.6% risk for serious blood leaks with AFX Endovascular AAA System aneurysm devices, more than double the 5.7% risk estimated for competing products. The team selected EVAR devices for the study due in part to their known safety concerns. Endologix, the maker of the devices, declined to comment for this story.

The Harvard team used data from the Veterans Affairs health system, which is considered more well organized than most other health systems. But UDI information was found for only 19 of the 13,941 patients whose records were studied. In those cases, only partial information was included.

The researchers developed natural language processing tools, which they used to scrounge clinical notes for information about which devices patients received.

Using this method isn’t feasible for most clinicians, given that records from independent hospitals might not provide this kind of data and descriptions to search, according to the authors of an editorial accompanying the paper. Those researchers urged Congress to pass a law mandating inclusion of UDIs for all devices on claims forms as a condition for reimbursement by federal health care programs.

Setback for advocates

The movement toward UDI suffered a setback in June.

An influential, but little known federal advisory panel, the National Committee on Vital Health Statistics (NCVHS), opted to not recommend use of this information in claims, saying the FDA should consider the matter further.

Gaining an NCVHS recommendation would have been a win, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), and Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), in a December 2022 letter to the panel.

Including UDI data would let researchers track patients’ interactions with a health system and could be used to establish population-level correlations between a particular device and a long-term outcome or side effect, the lawmakers said.

That view had the support of at least one major maker of devices, Cook Group, which sells products for a variety of specialties, including cardiology.

In a comment to NCVHS, Cook urged for the inclusion identifiers in Medicare claims.

“While some have argued that the UDI is better suited for inclusion in the electronic health records, Cook believes this argument sets up a false choice between the two,” wrote Stephen L. Ferguson, JD, the chairman of Cook’s board. “Inclusion of the UDI in both electronic health records and claims forms will lead to a more robust system of real-world data.”

In contrast, AdvaMed, the trade group for device makers, told the NCVHS that it did not support adding the information to payment claims submissions, instead just supporting the inclusion in EHRs.

Dr. Kovacs of the ACC said one potential drawback to more transparency could be challenges in interpreting reports of complications in certain cases, at least initially. Reports about a flaw or even a suspected flaw in a device might lead patients to become concerned about their implanted devices, potentially registering unfounded complaints.

But this concern can be addressed through using “scientific rigor and safeguards” and is outweighed by the potential safety benefits for patients, Dr. Kovacs said.

Patients should ask health care systems to track and share information about their implanted devices, Dr. Kovacs suggested.

“I feel it would be my right to demand that that device information follows my electronic medical record, so that it’s readily available to anyone who’s taking care of me,” Dr. Kovacs said. “They would know what it is that’s in me, whether it’s a lens in my eye or a prosthesis in my hip or a highly complicated implantable cardiac electronic device.”

The Harvard study was supported by the FDA and National Institutes of Health. Authors of the study reported receiving fees from the FDA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Authors of the editorial reported past and present connections with F-Prime Capital, FDA, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures, as well being an expert witness at in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen. Authors of the Viewpoint reported past and present connections with the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), which is part of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC); AIM North America UDI Advisory Committee, Mass General Brigham, Arnold Ventures; the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review California Technology Assessment Forum; Yale University, Johnson & Johnson, FD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; as well as having been an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against.

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

Some physicians are frustrated that key information about implantable medical devices rarely makes it into electronic health records, despite a 10-year mandate on manufacturers to label these products with identifiers.

As a result of this siloing of information, patients are not getting the expected benefits of a regulation finalized over a decade ago by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In 2013, the agency ordered companies to include unique device identifiers (UDIs) in plain-text and barcode format on some device labels, starting with implanted devices that are considered life-sustaining. The FDA said that tracking of UDI information would speed detection of complications linked to devices.

But identifiers are rarely on devices. At the time of the regulation creation, the FDA also said it expected this data would be integrated into EHRs. But only a few pioneer organizations such as Duke University and Mercy Health have so far attempted to track any UDI data in an organized way, researchers say.

Richard J. Kovacs, MD, the chief medical officer of the American College of Cardiology, contrasted the lack of useful implementation of UDI data with the speedy transfers of information that happen routinely in other industries. For example, employees of car rental agencies use handheld devices to gather detailed information about the vehicles being returned.

“But if you go to an emergency room with a medical device in your body, no one knows what it is or where it came from or anything about it,” Dr. Kovacs said in an interview.

Many physicians with expertise in device research have pushed for years to have insurers like Medicare require identification information on medical claims.

Even researchers face multiple obstacles in trying to investigate how well UDIs have been incorporated into EHRs and outcomes tied to certain devices.

In August, a Harvard team published a study in JAMA Internal Medicine, attempting to analyze the risks of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) devices. They reported an 11.6% risk for serious blood leaks with AFX Endovascular AAA System aneurysm devices, more than double the 5.7% risk estimated for competing products. The team selected EVAR devices for the study due in part to their known safety concerns. Endologix, the maker of the devices, declined to comment for this story.

The Harvard team used data from the Veterans Affairs health system, which is considered more well organized than most other health systems. But UDI information was found for only 19 of the 13,941 patients whose records were studied. In those cases, only partial information was included.

The researchers developed natural language processing tools, which they used to scrounge clinical notes for information about which devices patients received.

Using this method isn’t feasible for most clinicians, given that records from independent hospitals might not provide this kind of data and descriptions to search, according to the authors of an editorial accompanying the paper. Those researchers urged Congress to pass a law mandating inclusion of UDIs for all devices on claims forms as a condition for reimbursement by federal health care programs.

Setback for advocates

The movement toward UDI suffered a setback in June.

An influential, but little known federal advisory panel, the National Committee on Vital Health Statistics (NCVHS), opted to not recommend use of this information in claims, saying the FDA should consider the matter further.

Gaining an NCVHS recommendation would have been a win, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), and Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), in a December 2022 letter to the panel.

Including UDI data would let researchers track patients’ interactions with a health system and could be used to establish population-level correlations between a particular device and a long-term outcome or side effect, the lawmakers said.

That view had the support of at least one major maker of devices, Cook Group, which sells products for a variety of specialties, including cardiology.

In a comment to NCVHS, Cook urged for the inclusion identifiers in Medicare claims.

“While some have argued that the UDI is better suited for inclusion in the electronic health records, Cook believes this argument sets up a false choice between the two,” wrote Stephen L. Ferguson, JD, the chairman of Cook’s board. “Inclusion of the UDI in both electronic health records and claims forms will lead to a more robust system of real-world data.”

In contrast, AdvaMed, the trade group for device makers, told the NCVHS that it did not support adding the information to payment claims submissions, instead just supporting the inclusion in EHRs.

Dr. Kovacs of the ACC said one potential drawback to more transparency could be challenges in interpreting reports of complications in certain cases, at least initially. Reports about a flaw or even a suspected flaw in a device might lead patients to become concerned about their implanted devices, potentially registering unfounded complaints.

But this concern can be addressed through using “scientific rigor and safeguards” and is outweighed by the potential safety benefits for patients, Dr. Kovacs said.

Patients should ask health care systems to track and share information about their implanted devices, Dr. Kovacs suggested.

“I feel it would be my right to demand that that device information follows my electronic medical record, so that it’s readily available to anyone who’s taking care of me,” Dr. Kovacs said. “They would know what it is that’s in me, whether it’s a lens in my eye or a prosthesis in my hip or a highly complicated implantable cardiac electronic device.”

The Harvard study was supported by the FDA and National Institutes of Health. Authors of the study reported receiving fees from the FDA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Authors of the editorial reported past and present connections with F-Prime Capital, FDA, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures, as well being an expert witness at in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen. Authors of the Viewpoint reported past and present connections with the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), which is part of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC); AIM North America UDI Advisory Committee, Mass General Brigham, Arnold Ventures; the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review California Technology Assessment Forum; Yale University, Johnson & Johnson, FD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; as well as having been an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against.

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

The actress Sally Field recently described her struggles with postmenopausal osteoporosis – she was given the diagnosis when she was 60 years old despite being physically active and engaging in activities such as biking, hiking, and yoga. As a slim, White woman in her sixth decade of life, she certainly had several risk factors for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis, a condition associated with weak bones and an increased risk for fracture, is common in women after menopause. It’s defined as a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of less than or equal to –2.5 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, occurrence of a spine or hip fracture regardless of BMD, or a BMD T-score between –1 and –2.5, along with a history of certain kinds of fractures or increased fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX).

Massachusetts General Hospital

Why increased fracture risk in postmenopausal women?

The primary cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis is the cessation of estrogen production by the ovaries around the menopausal transition. Estrogen is very important for bone health. It reduces bone loss by reducing levels of receptor activator of NF-kappa B ligand (RANKL) and sclerostin, and it probably also increases bone formation through its effects on sclerostin.

Around menopause, the decrease in estrogen levels results in an increase in RANKL and sclerostin, with a consequent increase in bone loss at a pace that exceeds the rate of bone formation, thereby leading to osteoporosis.

Many factors further increase the risk for osteoporosis and fracture in postmenopausal women. These include a sedentary lifestyle, lower body weight, family history of osteoporosis, smoking, and certain medications and diseases. Medications that adversely affect bone health at this age include (but are not limited to) glucocorticoids such as hydrocortisone, prednisone, and dexamethasone; letrozole; excess thyroid hormone; certain drugs used to treat cancer; immunosuppressive drugs; certain antiseizure medications; proton pump inhibitors (such as omeprazole); sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and certain other drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes; and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (used to treat anxiety and depression).

Diseases associated with increased osteoporosis risk include certain genetic conditions affecting bone, a history of early ovarian insufficiency, hyperthyroidism, high levels of cortisol, diabetes, hyperparathyroidism, eating disorders, obesity, calcium and vitamin D deficiency, excess urinary excretion of calcium, malabsorption and certain gastrointestinal surgeries, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and frailty.

Furthermore, older age, low bone density, a previous history of fracture, a family history of hip fracture, smoking, and excessive alcohol intake increase the risk for an osteoporotic fracture in a postmenopausal woman.

Bone density assessment using DXA is recommended in postmenopausal women who are at increased risk for low bone density and fracture. Monitoring of bone density is typically initiated about 5 years after the menopausal transition but should be considered earlier in those at high risk for osteoporosis. Women who are aged 70 or older, and those who have had significant height loss, should also get radiography of the spine to look for vertebral fractures.

Optimal nutrition is important for all postmenopausal women. Weight extremes are to be avoided. Although the use of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women is still debated, the Institute of Medicine recommends that women 51-70 years of age take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-600 IU of vitamin D daily, and that those older than 70 years take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 IU of vitamin D daily.

Women with low vitamin D levels often require higher doses of vitamin D. It’s very important to avoid smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Optimizing protein intake and exercises that improve muscle strength and improve balance can reduce the risk for falls, a key contributor to osteoporotic fractures.
 

Estrogen to prevent fracture risk

Because estrogen deficiency is a key cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis, estrogen replacement therapy has been used to prevent this condition, particularly early in the menopausal transition (51-60 years). Different formulations of estrogen given via oral or transdermal routes have been demonstrated to prevent osteoporosis; transdermal estrogen is often preferred because of a lower risk for blood clots and stroke. Women who have an intact uterus should also receive a progestin preparation either daily or cyclically, because estrogen alone can increase the risk for uterine cancer in the long run. Estrogen replacement has been associated with a 34% reduction in vertebral, hip, and total fractures in women of this age group.

Sally Field did receive hormone replacement therapy, which was helpful for her bones. However, as typically happens, her bone density dropped again when she discontinued hormone replacement. She also had low vitamin D levels, but vitamin D supplementation was not helpful. She received other medical intervention, with recovery back to good bone health.

Raloxifene is a medication that acts on the estrogen receptor, with beneficial effects on bone, and is approved for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Medications that reduce bone loss (antiresorptive drugs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, and those that increase bone formation (osteoanabolic drugs), such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, are used alone or in combination in women whose osteoporosis doesn’t respond to lifestyle and preventive strategies. The osteoanabolic drugs are typically reserved for women at very high risk for fractures, such as those with a BMD T-score ≤ less than or equal to –3, older women with recent fractures, and those with other risk factors. Treatment is typically lifelong.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis can have far-reaching consequences on one’s quality of life, given the risk for fractures that are often associated with hospitalization, surgery, and long periods of rehabilitation (such as fractures of the spine and hip). It’s important to recognize those at greatest risk for this condition; implement bone health monitoring in a timely fashion; and ensure optimal nutrition, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and exercises that optimize muscle strength and balance. Hormone replacement therapy is a consideration in many women. Some women will require antiresorptive or osteoanabolic drugs to manage this condition. With optimal treatment, older women can live long and productive lives.

Dr. Misra is Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Mass General for Children; Associate Director, Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; Director, Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital; Professor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Sanofi; Ipsen.

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

The actress Sally Field recently described her struggles with postmenopausal osteoporosis – she was given the diagnosis when she was 60 years old despite being physically active and engaging in activities such as biking, hiking, and yoga. As a slim, White woman in her sixth decade of life, she certainly had several risk factors for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis, a condition associated with weak bones and an increased risk for fracture, is common in women after menopause. It’s defined as a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of less than or equal to –2.5 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, occurrence of a spine or hip fracture regardless of BMD, or a BMD T-score between –1 and –2.5, along with a history of certain kinds of fractures or increased fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX).

Massachusetts General Hospital

Why increased fracture risk in postmenopausal women?

The primary cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis is the cessation of estrogen production by the ovaries around the menopausal transition. Estrogen is very important for bone health. It reduces bone loss by reducing levels of receptor activator of NF-kappa B ligand (RANKL) and sclerostin, and it probably also increases bone formation through its effects on sclerostin.

Around menopause, the decrease in estrogen levels results in an increase in RANKL and sclerostin, with a consequent increase in bone loss at a pace that exceeds the rate of bone formation, thereby leading to osteoporosis.

Many factors further increase the risk for osteoporosis and fracture in postmenopausal women. These include a sedentary lifestyle, lower body weight, family history of osteoporosis, smoking, and certain medications and diseases. Medications that adversely affect bone health at this age include (but are not limited to) glucocorticoids such as hydrocortisone, prednisone, and dexamethasone; letrozole; excess thyroid hormone; certain drugs used to treat cancer; immunosuppressive drugs; certain antiseizure medications; proton pump inhibitors (such as omeprazole); sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and certain other drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes; and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (used to treat anxiety and depression).

Diseases associated with increased osteoporosis risk include certain genetic conditions affecting bone, a history of early ovarian insufficiency, hyperthyroidism, high levels of cortisol, diabetes, hyperparathyroidism, eating disorders, obesity, calcium and vitamin D deficiency, excess urinary excretion of calcium, malabsorption and certain gastrointestinal surgeries, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and frailty.

Furthermore, older age, low bone density, a previous history of fracture, a family history of hip fracture, smoking, and excessive alcohol intake increase the risk for an osteoporotic fracture in a postmenopausal woman.

Bone density assessment using DXA is recommended in postmenopausal women who are at increased risk for low bone density and fracture. Monitoring of bone density is typically initiated about 5 years after the menopausal transition but should be considered earlier in those at high risk for osteoporosis. Women who are aged 70 or older, and those who have had significant height loss, should also get radiography of the spine to look for vertebral fractures.

Optimal nutrition is important for all postmenopausal women. Weight extremes are to be avoided. Although the use of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women is still debated, the Institute of Medicine recommends that women 51-70 years of age take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-600 IU of vitamin D daily, and that those older than 70 years take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 IU of vitamin D daily.

Women with low vitamin D levels often require higher doses of vitamin D. It’s very important to avoid smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Optimizing protein intake and exercises that improve muscle strength and improve balance can reduce the risk for falls, a key contributor to osteoporotic fractures.
 

Estrogen to prevent fracture risk

Because estrogen deficiency is a key cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis, estrogen replacement therapy has been used to prevent this condition, particularly early in the menopausal transition (51-60 years). Different formulations of estrogen given via oral or transdermal routes have been demonstrated to prevent osteoporosis; transdermal estrogen is often preferred because of a lower risk for blood clots and stroke. Women who have an intact uterus should also receive a progestin preparation either daily or cyclically, because estrogen alone can increase the risk for uterine cancer in the long run. Estrogen replacement has been associated with a 34% reduction in vertebral, hip, and total fractures in women of this age group.

Sally Field did receive hormone replacement therapy, which was helpful for her bones. However, as typically happens, her bone density dropped again when she discontinued hormone replacement. She also had low vitamin D levels, but vitamin D supplementation was not helpful. She received other medical intervention, with recovery back to good bone health.

Raloxifene is a medication that acts on the estrogen receptor, with beneficial effects on bone, and is approved for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Medications that reduce bone loss (antiresorptive drugs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, and those that increase bone formation (osteoanabolic drugs), such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, are used alone or in combination in women whose osteoporosis doesn’t respond to lifestyle and preventive strategies. The osteoanabolic drugs are typically reserved for women at very high risk for fractures, such as those with a BMD T-score ≤ less than or equal to –3, older women with recent fractures, and those with other risk factors. Treatment is typically lifelong.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis can have far-reaching consequences on one’s quality of life, given the risk for fractures that are often associated with hospitalization, surgery, and long periods of rehabilitation (such as fractures of the spine and hip). It’s important to recognize those at greatest risk for this condition; implement bone health monitoring in a timely fashion; and ensure optimal nutrition, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and exercises that optimize muscle strength and balance. Hormone replacement therapy is a consideration in many women. Some women will require antiresorptive or osteoanabolic drugs to manage this condition. With optimal treatment, older women can live long and productive lives.

Dr. Misra is Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Mass General for Children; Associate Director, Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; Director, Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital; Professor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Sanofi; Ipsen.

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

The actress Sally Field recently described her struggles with postmenopausal osteoporosis – she was given the diagnosis when she was 60 years old despite being physically active and engaging in activities such as biking, hiking, and yoga. As a slim, White woman in her sixth decade of life, she certainly had several risk factors for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis, a condition associated with weak bones and an increased risk for fracture, is common in women after menopause. It’s defined as a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of less than or equal to –2.5 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, occurrence of a spine or hip fracture regardless of BMD, or a BMD T-score between –1 and –2.5, along with a history of certain kinds of fractures or increased fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX).

Massachusetts General Hospital

Why increased fracture risk in postmenopausal women?

The primary cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis is the cessation of estrogen production by the ovaries around the menopausal transition. Estrogen is very important for bone health. It reduces bone loss by reducing levels of receptor activator of NF-kappa B ligand (RANKL) and sclerostin, and it probably also increases bone formation through its effects on sclerostin.

Around menopause, the decrease in estrogen levels results in an increase in RANKL and sclerostin, with a consequent increase in bone loss at a pace that exceeds the rate of bone formation, thereby leading to osteoporosis.

Many factors further increase the risk for osteoporosis and fracture in postmenopausal women. These include a sedentary lifestyle, lower body weight, family history of osteoporosis, smoking, and certain medications and diseases. Medications that adversely affect bone health at this age include (but are not limited to) glucocorticoids such as hydrocortisone, prednisone, and dexamethasone; letrozole; excess thyroid hormone; certain drugs used to treat cancer; immunosuppressive drugs; certain antiseizure medications; proton pump inhibitors (such as omeprazole); sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and certain other drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes; and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (used to treat anxiety and depression).

Diseases associated with increased osteoporosis risk include certain genetic conditions affecting bone, a history of early ovarian insufficiency, hyperthyroidism, high levels of cortisol, diabetes, hyperparathyroidism, eating disorders, obesity, calcium and vitamin D deficiency, excess urinary excretion of calcium, malabsorption and certain gastrointestinal surgeries, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and frailty.

Furthermore, older age, low bone density, a previous history of fracture, a family history of hip fracture, smoking, and excessive alcohol intake increase the risk for an osteoporotic fracture in a postmenopausal woman.

Bone density assessment using DXA is recommended in postmenopausal women who are at increased risk for low bone density and fracture. Monitoring of bone density is typically initiated about 5 years after the menopausal transition but should be considered earlier in those at high risk for osteoporosis. Women who are aged 70 or older, and those who have had significant height loss, should also get radiography of the spine to look for vertebral fractures.

Optimal nutrition is important for all postmenopausal women. Weight extremes are to be avoided. Although the use of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women is still debated, the Institute of Medicine recommends that women 51-70 years of age take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-600 IU of vitamin D daily, and that those older than 70 years take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 IU of vitamin D daily.

Women with low vitamin D levels often require higher doses of vitamin D. It’s very important to avoid smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Optimizing protein intake and exercises that improve muscle strength and improve balance can reduce the risk for falls, a key contributor to osteoporotic fractures.
 

Estrogen to prevent fracture risk

Because estrogen deficiency is a key cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis, estrogen replacement therapy has been used to prevent this condition, particularly early in the menopausal transition (51-60 years). Different formulations of estrogen given via oral or transdermal routes have been demonstrated to prevent osteoporosis; transdermal estrogen is often preferred because of a lower risk for blood clots and stroke. Women who have an intact uterus should also receive a progestin preparation either daily or cyclically, because estrogen alone can increase the risk for uterine cancer in the long run. Estrogen replacement has been associated with a 34% reduction in vertebral, hip, and total fractures in women of this age group.

Sally Field did receive hormone replacement therapy, which was helpful for her bones. However, as typically happens, her bone density dropped again when she discontinued hormone replacement. She also had low vitamin D levels, but vitamin D supplementation was not helpful. She received other medical intervention, with recovery back to good bone health.

Raloxifene is a medication that acts on the estrogen receptor, with beneficial effects on bone, and is approved for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Medications that reduce bone loss (antiresorptive drugs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, and those that increase bone formation (osteoanabolic drugs), such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, are used alone or in combination in women whose osteoporosis doesn’t respond to lifestyle and preventive strategies. The osteoanabolic drugs are typically reserved for women at very high risk for fractures, such as those with a BMD T-score ≤ less than or equal to –3, older women with recent fractures, and those with other risk factors. Treatment is typically lifelong.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis can have far-reaching consequences on one’s quality of life, given the risk for fractures that are often associated with hospitalization, surgery, and long periods of rehabilitation (such as fractures of the spine and hip). It’s important to recognize those at greatest risk for this condition; implement bone health monitoring in a timely fashion; and ensure optimal nutrition, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and exercises that optimize muscle strength and balance. Hormone replacement therapy is a consideration in many women. Some women will require antiresorptive or osteoanabolic drugs to manage this condition. With optimal treatment, older women can live long and productive lives.

Dr. Misra is Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Mass General for Children; Associate Director, Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; Director, Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital; Professor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Sanofi; Ipsen.

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