MDedge Rheumatology

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

Industry-sponsored research funding has fallen by more than 20% from 2014 to 2022, according to a new analysis.

“Despite the growing partnerships and networks between rheumatologists, the public sector, and the health care industry to optimize research funding allocations, the declining trend in industry-sponsored research payments is a concerning sign for all rheumatologists,” writes study author Anju Murayama, an undergraduate medical student at the Tohoku University School of Medicine in Sendai City, Japan. The data suggest that “more and more rheumatologists are facing difficulties in obtaining research funding from the health care industry.”

Dr. Murayama used the Open Payments Database, which contains records of payments made by drug and pharmaceutical companies to health care providers. The analysis included research payments provided directly to rheumatologists (direct-research payments) and payments given to clinicians or health care organizations related to research whose principal investigator was a rheumatologist (associated-research payments). These associated payments included costs for study enrollment and screening, safety monitoring committees, research publication, and more.

The research was published August 15 in The Journal of Rheumatology .

In 2014, the total direct payments to rheumatologists from industry were $1.4 million. These payments jumped to nearly $4.6 million in 2016 but have declined since. In 2022, there were $976,481 in total payments, a 31% drop from 9 years before.

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

Industry-sponsored research funding has fallen by more than 20% from 2014 to 2022, according to a new analysis.

“Despite the growing partnerships and networks between rheumatologists, the public sector, and the health care industry to optimize research funding allocations, the declining trend in industry-sponsored research payments is a concerning sign for all rheumatologists,” writes study author Anju Murayama, an undergraduate medical student at the Tohoku University School of Medicine in Sendai City, Japan. The data suggest that “more and more rheumatologists are facing difficulties in obtaining research funding from the health care industry.”

Dr. Murayama used the Open Payments Database, which contains records of payments made by drug and pharmaceutical companies to health care providers. The analysis included research payments provided directly to rheumatologists (direct-research payments) and payments given to clinicians or health care organizations related to research whose principal investigator was a rheumatologist (associated-research payments). These associated payments included costs for study enrollment and screening, safety monitoring committees, research publication, and more.

The research was published August 15 in The Journal of Rheumatology .

In 2014, the total direct payments to rheumatologists from industry were $1.4 million. These payments jumped to nearly $4.6 million in 2016 but have declined since. In 2022, there were $976,481 in total payments, a 31% drop from 9 years before.

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

Industry-sponsored research funding has fallen by more than 20% from 2014 to 2022, according to a new analysis.

“Despite the growing partnerships and networks between rheumatologists, the public sector, and the health care industry to optimize research funding allocations, the declining trend in industry-sponsored research payments is a concerning sign for all rheumatologists,” writes study author Anju Murayama, an undergraduate medical student at the Tohoku University School of Medicine in Sendai City, Japan. The data suggest that “more and more rheumatologists are facing difficulties in obtaining research funding from the health care industry.”

Dr. Murayama used the Open Payments Database, which contains records of payments made by drug and pharmaceutical companies to health care providers. The analysis included research payments provided directly to rheumatologists (direct-research payments) and payments given to clinicians or health care organizations related to research whose principal investigator was a rheumatologist (associated-research payments). These associated payments included costs for study enrollment and screening, safety monitoring committees, research publication, and more.

The research was published August 15 in The Journal of Rheumatology .

In 2014, the total direct payments to rheumatologists from industry were $1.4 million. These payments jumped to nearly $4.6 million in 2016 but have declined since. In 2022, there were $976,481 in total payments, a 31% drop from 9 years before.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

Systemic sclerosis patients with both interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension had worse survival than those without both conditions, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.

Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.

The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.

By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).

“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Systemic sclerosis patients with both interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension had worse survival than those without both conditions, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.

Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.

The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.

By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).

“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Systemic sclerosis patients with both interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension had worse survival than those without both conditions, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.

Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.

The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.

By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).

“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Patients taking long-term, low-dose glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis over 2 years had a very modest relative weight gain but no relative increase in blood pressure when compared with patients who did not take the drugs, according to findings from a combined study of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

“This pooled analysis of five RCTs in RA found that 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment [at 7.5 mg/day or less] leads to a modest weight gain of about 1 kg but has no effect on blood pressure,” lead study author Andriko Palmowski, MD, a physician and researcher in rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Many clinicians fear using even low-dose glucocorticoids because of the adverse effects associated with their long-term use at higher doses,” noted Leslie J. Crofford, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, microbiology, and immunology, and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Indeed, long-term use of even these low doses increases risk for many significant adverse effects, including osteoporosis and cataracts in observational cohorts,” added Dr. Crofford, who was not involved in the study.

Studies were combined for stronger results

Observational studies are prone to confounding, and the RCTs in the literature have been small, resulting in low statistical power, the authors explained.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Palmowski and associates combined individual participant data from five RCTs of glucocorticoid treatment for RA in 12 countries in Europe. The 1,112 participants had early and established RA, averaged 61.4 years of age, and 68% were women. The GLORIA trial, an RCT that contributed about 40% of the overall study population, “explicitly included elderly patients and patients with multimorbidity who are often excluded from RA trials,” the authors wrote.

Participants in the intervention group took low-dose glucocorticoids (prednisone equivalent, ≤ 7.5 mg/day; three trials used a dose of 5 mg prednisone equivalent per day); and patients in the control groups took placebo, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or both. The researchers compared change over 2 years in body weight and mean arterial pressure between the groups.

At 2 years, both groups gained weight, but participants who took glucocorticoids gained an average of 1.1 kg (P < .001) more than the controls. Mean arterial pressure increased by around 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a –0.4 mm Hg between-group difference (P = .187).

Daniel G. Arkfeld MD, DDS, professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, found this “a fascinating analysis” and called the lack of change in blood pressure important.

“Steroids are used less in RA due to perceived side effects. Yet many patients have ongoing synovitis and need steroids to enable them to work and perform other activities,” said Dr. Arkfeld, who also was not involved in the study. “NSAIDs are more of an issue, with up to 10% raising blood pressure. Should we be using more steroids and less NSAIDs?”

Dr. Arkfeld also was concerned that the small 2-year weight gain may become significant over time.

Kim Marie Huffman, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., agreed.

“More investigations and longer (or shorter) time periods may have yielded additional findings,” said Dr. Huffman, who also was not involved in the study. “Efforts should be made to minimize long-term prednisone use to minimize impact on weight gain and resulting consequences.”
 

Are these results applicable to U.S. patients?

“Low-dose prednisone is commonly used in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said. “Extrapolating the results to a U.S. population is probably fine.”

Dr. Arkfeld agreed that the results can be used to treat U.S. patients because of the large number of study participants.

According to Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, rheumatologist and instructor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, this is an important study. But she cautioned that the literature does not contain good data for other potential harmful effects of long-term, low-dose glucocorticoid use. “Therefore, as per both ACR [American College of Rheumatology] and EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] recommendations, we should still try to limit glucocorticoids to the lowest dose and shortest duration possible in our RA patients,” advised Dr. Blank, who was not an author in the study.
 

Strengths, weaknesses, and thoughts on further research

“Pooling trials can be tricky, but these investigators used individual-level data, which increases the rigor of the analyses,” Dr. Crofford noted. “There were differences in patient populations and with the glucocorticoid doses and routes of administration. The fact that the patients in each of the studies were randomized is very important in determining if the outcomes can be attributed to the drugs or could be the results of other exposures.”

Dr. Arkfeld would like to know whether early versus late RA patients may have different results because they may have different pathophysiologies.

Dr. Huffman is interested in low-dose glucocorticoids’ impacts on glucose homeostasis, bone density, infection, and other common adverse effects.

In an accompanying editorial, David Fernandez, MD, PhD, of Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, wrote: “These findings provide a more quantifiable assessment of the potential adverse effects of steroid therapy than had existed previously and will be helpful to providers and patients as they decide on the relative risks and benefits of glucocorticoids as part of their therapy plan in rheumatoid arthritis.”

The study received no specific funding. Four of the study’s 13 authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fernandez and all outside experts who commented on the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients taking long-term, low-dose glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis over 2 years had a very modest relative weight gain but no relative increase in blood pressure when compared with patients who did not take the drugs, according to findings from a combined study of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

“This pooled analysis of five RCTs in RA found that 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment [at 7.5 mg/day or less] leads to a modest weight gain of about 1 kg but has no effect on blood pressure,” lead study author Andriko Palmowski, MD, a physician and researcher in rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Many clinicians fear using even low-dose glucocorticoids because of the adverse effects associated with their long-term use at higher doses,” noted Leslie J. Crofford, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, microbiology, and immunology, and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Indeed, long-term use of even these low doses increases risk for many significant adverse effects, including osteoporosis and cataracts in observational cohorts,” added Dr. Crofford, who was not involved in the study.

Studies were combined for stronger results

Observational studies are prone to confounding, and the RCTs in the literature have been small, resulting in low statistical power, the authors explained.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Palmowski and associates combined individual participant data from five RCTs of glucocorticoid treatment for RA in 12 countries in Europe. The 1,112 participants had early and established RA, averaged 61.4 years of age, and 68% were women. The GLORIA trial, an RCT that contributed about 40% of the overall study population, “explicitly included elderly patients and patients with multimorbidity who are often excluded from RA trials,” the authors wrote.

Participants in the intervention group took low-dose glucocorticoids (prednisone equivalent, ≤ 7.5 mg/day; three trials used a dose of 5 mg prednisone equivalent per day); and patients in the control groups took placebo, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or both. The researchers compared change over 2 years in body weight and mean arterial pressure between the groups.

At 2 years, both groups gained weight, but participants who took glucocorticoids gained an average of 1.1 kg (P < .001) more than the controls. Mean arterial pressure increased by around 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a –0.4 mm Hg between-group difference (P = .187).

Daniel G. Arkfeld MD, DDS, professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, found this “a fascinating analysis” and called the lack of change in blood pressure important.

“Steroids are used less in RA due to perceived side effects. Yet many patients have ongoing synovitis and need steroids to enable them to work and perform other activities,” said Dr. Arkfeld, who also was not involved in the study. “NSAIDs are more of an issue, with up to 10% raising blood pressure. Should we be using more steroids and less NSAIDs?”

Dr. Arkfeld also was concerned that the small 2-year weight gain may become significant over time.

Kim Marie Huffman, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., agreed.

“More investigations and longer (or shorter) time periods may have yielded additional findings,” said Dr. Huffman, who also was not involved in the study. “Efforts should be made to minimize long-term prednisone use to minimize impact on weight gain and resulting consequences.”
 

Are these results applicable to U.S. patients?

“Low-dose prednisone is commonly used in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said. “Extrapolating the results to a U.S. population is probably fine.”

Dr. Arkfeld agreed that the results can be used to treat U.S. patients because of the large number of study participants.

According to Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, rheumatologist and instructor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, this is an important study. But she cautioned that the literature does not contain good data for other potential harmful effects of long-term, low-dose glucocorticoid use. “Therefore, as per both ACR [American College of Rheumatology] and EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] recommendations, we should still try to limit glucocorticoids to the lowest dose and shortest duration possible in our RA patients,” advised Dr. Blank, who was not an author in the study.
 

Strengths, weaknesses, and thoughts on further research

“Pooling trials can be tricky, but these investigators used individual-level data, which increases the rigor of the analyses,” Dr. Crofford noted. “There were differences in patient populations and with the glucocorticoid doses and routes of administration. The fact that the patients in each of the studies were randomized is very important in determining if the outcomes can be attributed to the drugs or could be the results of other exposures.”

Dr. Arkfeld would like to know whether early versus late RA patients may have different results because they may have different pathophysiologies.

Dr. Huffman is interested in low-dose glucocorticoids’ impacts on glucose homeostasis, bone density, infection, and other common adverse effects.

In an accompanying editorial, David Fernandez, MD, PhD, of Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, wrote: “These findings provide a more quantifiable assessment of the potential adverse effects of steroid therapy than had existed previously and will be helpful to providers and patients as they decide on the relative risks and benefits of glucocorticoids as part of their therapy plan in rheumatoid arthritis.”

The study received no specific funding. Four of the study’s 13 authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fernandez and all outside experts who commented on the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients taking long-term, low-dose glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis over 2 years had a very modest relative weight gain but no relative increase in blood pressure when compared with patients who did not take the drugs, according to findings from a combined study of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

“This pooled analysis of five RCTs in RA found that 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment [at 7.5 mg/day or less] leads to a modest weight gain of about 1 kg but has no effect on blood pressure,” lead study author Andriko Palmowski, MD, a physician and researcher in rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Many clinicians fear using even low-dose glucocorticoids because of the adverse effects associated with their long-term use at higher doses,” noted Leslie J. Crofford, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, microbiology, and immunology, and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Indeed, long-term use of even these low doses increases risk for many significant adverse effects, including osteoporosis and cataracts in observational cohorts,” added Dr. Crofford, who was not involved in the study.

Studies were combined for stronger results

Observational studies are prone to confounding, and the RCTs in the literature have been small, resulting in low statistical power, the authors explained.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Palmowski and associates combined individual participant data from five RCTs of glucocorticoid treatment for RA in 12 countries in Europe. The 1,112 participants had early and established RA, averaged 61.4 years of age, and 68% were women. The GLORIA trial, an RCT that contributed about 40% of the overall study population, “explicitly included elderly patients and patients with multimorbidity who are often excluded from RA trials,” the authors wrote.

Participants in the intervention group took low-dose glucocorticoids (prednisone equivalent, ≤ 7.5 mg/day; three trials used a dose of 5 mg prednisone equivalent per day); and patients in the control groups took placebo, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or both. The researchers compared change over 2 years in body weight and mean arterial pressure between the groups.

At 2 years, both groups gained weight, but participants who took glucocorticoids gained an average of 1.1 kg (P < .001) more than the controls. Mean arterial pressure increased by around 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a –0.4 mm Hg between-group difference (P = .187).

Daniel G. Arkfeld MD, DDS, professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, found this “a fascinating analysis” and called the lack of change in blood pressure important.

“Steroids are used less in RA due to perceived side effects. Yet many patients have ongoing synovitis and need steroids to enable them to work and perform other activities,” said Dr. Arkfeld, who also was not involved in the study. “NSAIDs are more of an issue, with up to 10% raising blood pressure. Should we be using more steroids and less NSAIDs?”

Dr. Arkfeld also was concerned that the small 2-year weight gain may become significant over time.

Kim Marie Huffman, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., agreed.

“More investigations and longer (or shorter) time periods may have yielded additional findings,” said Dr. Huffman, who also was not involved in the study. “Efforts should be made to minimize long-term prednisone use to minimize impact on weight gain and resulting consequences.”
 

Are these results applicable to U.S. patients?

“Low-dose prednisone is commonly used in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said. “Extrapolating the results to a U.S. population is probably fine.”

Dr. Arkfeld agreed that the results can be used to treat U.S. patients because of the large number of study participants.

According to Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, rheumatologist and instructor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, this is an important study. But she cautioned that the literature does not contain good data for other potential harmful effects of long-term, low-dose glucocorticoid use. “Therefore, as per both ACR [American College of Rheumatology] and EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] recommendations, we should still try to limit glucocorticoids to the lowest dose and shortest duration possible in our RA patients,” advised Dr. Blank, who was not an author in the study.
 

Strengths, weaknesses, and thoughts on further research

“Pooling trials can be tricky, but these investigators used individual-level data, which increases the rigor of the analyses,” Dr. Crofford noted. “There were differences in patient populations and with the glucocorticoid doses and routes of administration. The fact that the patients in each of the studies were randomized is very important in determining if the outcomes can be attributed to the drugs or could be the results of other exposures.”

Dr. Arkfeld would like to know whether early versus late RA patients may have different results because they may have different pathophysiologies.

Dr. Huffman is interested in low-dose glucocorticoids’ impacts on glucose homeostasis, bone density, infection, and other common adverse effects.

In an accompanying editorial, David Fernandez, MD, PhD, of Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, wrote: “These findings provide a more quantifiable assessment of the potential adverse effects of steroid therapy than had existed previously and will be helpful to providers and patients as they decide on the relative risks and benefits of glucocorticoids as part of their therapy plan in rheumatoid arthritis.”

The study received no specific funding. Four of the study’s 13 authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fernandez and all outside experts who commented on the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Clinical trials of treatments for rheumatologic conditions appear especially vulnerable to inadvertent unblinding, because of noticeable side effects of some drugs and subjective outcome measures, according to a new analysis.

Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer

“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

A sample of pivotal clinical trials

The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.

The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.

In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:

• High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
• Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
• Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).

Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
 

Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity

CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.

“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.

The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.

But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.

“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.

In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.

“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
 

Unblinding measure needs validation

In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”

He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.

“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”

Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”

In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.

There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.

In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”

One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.

“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.

In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.

Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.

Clinical trials of treatments for rheumatologic conditions appear especially vulnerable to inadvertent unblinding, because of noticeable side effects of some drugs and subjective outcome measures, according to a new analysis.

Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer

“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

A sample of pivotal clinical trials

The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.

The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.

In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:

• High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
• Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
• Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).

Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
 

Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity

CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.

“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.

The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.

But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.

“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.

In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.

“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
 

Unblinding measure needs validation

In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”

He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.

“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”

Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”

In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.

There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.

In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”

One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.

“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.

In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.

Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.

Clinical trials of treatments for rheumatologic conditions appear especially vulnerable to inadvertent unblinding, because of noticeable side effects of some drugs and subjective outcome measures, according to a new analysis.

Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer

“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

A sample of pivotal clinical trials

The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.

The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.

In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:

• High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
• Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
• Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).

Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
 

Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity

CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.

“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.

The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.

But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.

“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.

In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.

“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
 

Unblinding measure needs validation

In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”

He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.

“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”

Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”

In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.

There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.

In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”

One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.

“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.

In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.

Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.