Rheumatology News

Glucocorticoid use is associated with greater mortality and cardiovascular risk in RA patients, and the associated risk is greater still in patients with RA and comorbid diabetes. The findings come from a new retrospective analysis derived from U.K. primary care records.

Although patients with diabetes actually had a lower relative risk for mortality than the nondiabetes cohort, they had a greater mortality difference because of a greater baseline risk. Ultimately, glucocorticoid (GC) use was associated with an additional 44.9 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the diabetes group, compared with 34.4 per 1,000 person-years in the RA-only group.

The study, led by Ruth Costello and William Dixon, MBBS, PhD of the University of Manchester (England), was published in BMC Rheumatology.

The findings aren’t particularly surprising, given that steroid use and diabetes have associated cardiovascular risks, and physicians generally try to reduce or eliminate their use. “There’s a group [of physicians] saying that we don’t need to use steroids at all in rheumatoid arthritis, except maybe for [a] short time at diagnosis to bridge to other therapies, or during flares,” Gordon Starkebaum, MD, professor emeritus of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He recounted a session at last year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that advocated for only injectable steroid use during flare-ups. “That was provocative,” Dr. Starkebaum said.

“It’s a retrospective study, so it has some limitations, but it provides good insight, and some substantiation to what we already think,” added Brett Smith, DO, a rheumatologist practicing in Knoxville, Tenn.

Dr. Smith suggested that the study further underscores the need to follow treat-to-target protocols in RA. He emphasized that lifetime exposure to steroids is likely the greatest concern, and that steady accumulating doses are a sign of trouble. “If you need that much steroids, you need to go up on your medication – your methotrexate, or sulfasalazine, or your biologic,” said Dr. Smith. “At least 50% of people will need a biologic to [achieve] disease control, and if you get them on it, they’re going to have better disease control, compliance is typically better, and they’re going to have less steroid exposure.”

Dr. Smith also noted that comorbid diabetes shouldn’t affect treat-to-target strategies. In fact, in such patients “you should probably be following it more tightly to reduce the cardiovascular outcomes,” he said.

The retrospective analysis included 9,085 patients with RA and with or without type 2 diabetes, with a mean follow-up of 5.2 years. They were recruited to the study between 1998 and 2011. Among patients with comorbid diabetes, those exposed to GC had a mortality of 67.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 22.5 among those not exposed to GC. Among those with RA alone, mortality was 44.6 versus 10.2 with and without GC exposure, respectively. Those with diabetes had a lower risk ratio for mortality (2.99 vs. 4.37), but a higher mortality difference (44.9 vs. 34.4 per 1,000 person-years).

“The increased absolute hazard for all-cause mortality indicates the greater public health impact of people with RA using GCs if they have [diabetes],” the researchers wrote. “Rheumatologists should consider [diabetes] status when prescribing GCs to patients with RA given this potential impact of GC therapy on glucose control and mortality.”

The study was limited by a lack of information on GC dose and cumulative exposure. Given its retrospective nature, the study could have been affected by confounding by indication, as well as unknown confounders.

The study was funded by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Starkebaum has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith is on the speaker’s bureau for AbbVie and serves on the company’s advisory board. He is also on the advisory boards of Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme.

SOURCE: Costello R et al. BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0105-4.

Glucocorticoid use is associated with greater mortality and cardiovascular risk in RA patients, and the associated risk is greater still in patients with RA and comorbid diabetes. The findings come from a new retrospective analysis derived from U.K. primary care records.

Although patients with diabetes actually had a lower relative risk for mortality than the nondiabetes cohort, they had a greater mortality difference because of a greater baseline risk. Ultimately, glucocorticoid (GC) use was associated with an additional 44.9 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the diabetes group, compared with 34.4 per 1,000 person-years in the RA-only group.

The study, led by Ruth Costello and William Dixon, MBBS, PhD of the University of Manchester (England), was published in BMC Rheumatology.

The findings aren’t particularly surprising, given that steroid use and diabetes have associated cardiovascular risks, and physicians generally try to reduce or eliminate their use. “There’s a group [of physicians] saying that we don’t need to use steroids at all in rheumatoid arthritis, except maybe for [a] short time at diagnosis to bridge to other therapies, or during flares,” Gordon Starkebaum, MD, professor emeritus of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He recounted a session at last year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that advocated for only injectable steroid use during flare-ups. “That was provocative,” Dr. Starkebaum said.

“It’s a retrospective study, so it has some limitations, but it provides good insight, and some substantiation to what we already think,” added Brett Smith, DO, a rheumatologist practicing in Knoxville, Tenn.

Dr. Smith suggested that the study further underscores the need to follow treat-to-target protocols in RA. He emphasized that lifetime exposure to steroids is likely the greatest concern, and that steady accumulating doses are a sign of trouble. “If you need that much steroids, you need to go up on your medication – your methotrexate, or sulfasalazine, or your biologic,” said Dr. Smith. “At least 50% of people will need a biologic to [achieve] disease control, and if you get them on it, they’re going to have better disease control, compliance is typically better, and they’re going to have less steroid exposure.”

Dr. Smith also noted that comorbid diabetes shouldn’t affect treat-to-target strategies. In fact, in such patients “you should probably be following it more tightly to reduce the cardiovascular outcomes,” he said.

The retrospective analysis included 9,085 patients with RA and with or without type 2 diabetes, with a mean follow-up of 5.2 years. They were recruited to the study between 1998 and 2011. Among patients with comorbid diabetes, those exposed to GC had a mortality of 67.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 22.5 among those not exposed to GC. Among those with RA alone, mortality was 44.6 versus 10.2 with and without GC exposure, respectively. Those with diabetes had a lower risk ratio for mortality (2.99 vs. 4.37), but a higher mortality difference (44.9 vs. 34.4 per 1,000 person-years).

“The increased absolute hazard for all-cause mortality indicates the greater public health impact of people with RA using GCs if they have [diabetes],” the researchers wrote. “Rheumatologists should consider [diabetes] status when prescribing GCs to patients with RA given this potential impact of GC therapy on glucose control and mortality.”

The study was limited by a lack of information on GC dose and cumulative exposure. Given its retrospective nature, the study could have been affected by confounding by indication, as well as unknown confounders.

The study was funded by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Starkebaum has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith is on the speaker’s bureau for AbbVie and serves on the company’s advisory board. He is also on the advisory boards of Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme.

SOURCE: Costello R et al. BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0105-4.

Glucocorticoid use is associated with greater mortality and cardiovascular risk in RA patients, and the associated risk is greater still in patients with RA and comorbid diabetes. The findings come from a new retrospective analysis derived from U.K. primary care records.

Although patients with diabetes actually had a lower relative risk for mortality than the nondiabetes cohort, they had a greater mortality difference because of a greater baseline risk. Ultimately, glucocorticoid (GC) use was associated with an additional 44.9 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the diabetes group, compared with 34.4 per 1,000 person-years in the RA-only group.

The study, led by Ruth Costello and William Dixon, MBBS, PhD of the University of Manchester (England), was published in BMC Rheumatology.

The findings aren’t particularly surprising, given that steroid use and diabetes have associated cardiovascular risks, and physicians generally try to reduce or eliminate their use. “There’s a group [of physicians] saying that we don’t need to use steroids at all in rheumatoid arthritis, except maybe for [a] short time at diagnosis to bridge to other therapies, or during flares,” Gordon Starkebaum, MD, professor emeritus of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He recounted a session at last year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that advocated for only injectable steroid use during flare-ups. “That was provocative,” Dr. Starkebaum said.

“It’s a retrospective study, so it has some limitations, but it provides good insight, and some substantiation to what we already think,” added Brett Smith, DO, a rheumatologist practicing in Knoxville, Tenn.

Dr. Smith suggested that the study further underscores the need to follow treat-to-target protocols in RA. He emphasized that lifetime exposure to steroids is likely the greatest concern, and that steady accumulating doses are a sign of trouble. “If you need that much steroids, you need to go up on your medication – your methotrexate, or sulfasalazine, or your biologic,” said Dr. Smith. “At least 50% of people will need a biologic to [achieve] disease control, and if you get them on it, they’re going to have better disease control, compliance is typically better, and they’re going to have less steroid exposure.”

Dr. Smith also noted that comorbid diabetes shouldn’t affect treat-to-target strategies. In fact, in such patients “you should probably be following it more tightly to reduce the cardiovascular outcomes,” he said.

The retrospective analysis included 9,085 patients with RA and with or without type 2 diabetes, with a mean follow-up of 5.2 years. They were recruited to the study between 1998 and 2011. Among patients with comorbid diabetes, those exposed to GC had a mortality of 67.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 22.5 among those not exposed to GC. Among those with RA alone, mortality was 44.6 versus 10.2 with and without GC exposure, respectively. Those with diabetes had a lower risk ratio for mortality (2.99 vs. 4.37), but a higher mortality difference (44.9 vs. 34.4 per 1,000 person-years).

“The increased absolute hazard for all-cause mortality indicates the greater public health impact of people with RA using GCs if they have [diabetes],” the researchers wrote. “Rheumatologists should consider [diabetes] status when prescribing GCs to patients with RA given this potential impact of GC therapy on glucose control and mortality.”

The study was limited by a lack of information on GC dose and cumulative exposure. Given its retrospective nature, the study could have been affected by confounding by indication, as well as unknown confounders.

The study was funded by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Starkebaum has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith is on the speaker’s bureau for AbbVie and serves on the company’s advisory board. He is also on the advisory boards of Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme.

SOURCE: Costello R et al. BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0105-4.

A new guideline from the American College of Rheumatology offers the organization’s first clinical recommendations on how to manage reproductive health issues in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“With the development of this guideline, the ACR recognizes the key role of clinical rheumatologists not only in managing disease activity but also in understanding the interactions of RMDs and their therapies in the context of reproductive health,” wrote Lisa R. Sammaritano, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and coauthors. The guideline was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

To develop an evidence-based guideline on reproductive health in RMD patients, the researchers embarked on a systematic review of studies in areas like contraception, pregnancy and lactation, assisted reproductive technology (ART), fertility preservation, and hormone therapy. The guideline contains 12 ungraded good practice statements and 131 graded recommendations, all developed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

In counseling patients about these areas of care, the guideline says that rheumatologists and other clinicians “must collaborate with specialists in the fields of obstetrics-gynecology, maternal-fetal medicine, and reproductive endocrinology and infertility.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“One thing this guideline does well is highlight the importance of involving maternal-fetal medicine colleagues,” Alison Cahill, MD, a professor in the department of women’s health at the University of Texas at Austin and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist within UT Health Austin’s Women’s Health Institute, said when asked for comment on the guideline. “We’re always very happy to see patients ahead of time who are planning pregnancy to be able to discuss what the care plan would look like. And specifically, to address medications, if required, for their rheumatologic care.

“As we learn more and more,” she added, “we’ve come to understand that most treatments and medications are actually safe or relatively safe to take in pregnancy. Certainly, the benefit of taking them outweighs any small or theoretic risks. On the flip side, the guideline does a nice job of highlighting the importance of good disease control, both at the time of conception and during pregnancy.”
 

Contraception

In regard to contraception, the guideline strongly recommends the use of effective contraceptives – with a conditional recommendation of IUDs or a subdermal progestin implant – in fertile women with a RMD who have neither systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) nor positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL). They also strongly recommend discussing the use of emergency contraception with all RMD patients.

For SLE patients, the guideline strongly recommends the use of effective contraceptives in those with stable or low disease activity who are not positive for aPL. They also strongly recommend progestin‐only or IUD contraceptives over combined estrogen‐progestin contraception. For aPL-positive patients, the guideline strongly recommends against combined estrogen‐progestin contraceptives and for levonorgestrel or copper IUDs or the progestin‐only pill.
 

Assisted reproductive technology

In regard to ART, the guideline strongly recommends proceeding as needed in aPL-negative women with uncomplicated, stable RMD who are on pregnancy‐compatible medications. They also strongly recommend deferring ART in any RMD patients with moderately or severely active disease.

For aPL-positive patients undergoing ART procedures, they strongly recommend prophylactic anticoagulation with heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in women with obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and therapeutic anticoagulation in women with thrombotic APS. In patients undergoing embryo and oocyte cryopreservation, they strongly recommend continuing immunosuppressive and biologic therapies – the exception being cyclophosphamide (CYC) – for anyone in stable condition.
 

Fertility preservation

In regard to fertility preservation in patients taking CYC, the guideline strongly suggests sperm cryopreservation as good practice prior to treatment. They also conditionally recommend monthly gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonist cotherapy in premenopausal women with RMD.

Hormone therapy

In regard to menopause and hormone therapy, the guideline strongly suggests hormone therapy as good practice in postmenopausal women with RMD, without SLE or positive aPL, and who have severe vasomotor symptoms. Hormone therapy is conditionally recommended in patients with SLE, without positive aPL, and with no contraindications. For aPL-positive patients, they strongly recommend against hormone therapy in women with obstetric and/or thrombotic APS.

Pregnancy assessment and management

Among the many recommendations regarding pregnancy assessment and management, the guideline strongly suggests counseling women with RMD who are considering pregnancy to take into account the improved outcomes for pregnant women with low disease activity. They strongly recommend that women considering pregnancy should switch to pregnancy‐compatible medication and pause to assess its efficacy and tolerability before moving forward, along with strongly recommending that pregnant women with active disease initiate or continue a pregnancy‐compatible steroid‐sparing medication. They also recommend testing for anti‐Ro/SS-A and anti‐La/SS-B in women with SLE, Sjögren’s syndrome, systemic sclerosis, or rheumatoid arthritis, but only once and only before or early in the pregnancy.

For women with systemic sclerosis who develop scleroderma renal crisis during pregnancy, the authors strongly advise using ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers “because the risk of maternal or fetal death with untreated disease is higher than the risk associated with use of these medications during pregnancy.”

Among women with SLE, the recommendations strongly call for testing either before or early in pregnancy for anticardiolipin antibody, anti–beta2-glycoprotein I, or positive lupus anticoagulant, as well as initiating or continuing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) if possible. Starting in the first trimester, the authors also conditionally recommend that SLE patients take low-dose aspirin daily

For pregnant women who test positive for aPL but do not meet criteria for obstetric or thrombotic APS, the guideline conditionally recommends prophylactic treatment with low-dose aspirin daily to protect against preeclampsia. When obstetric APS criteria are met, the guideline strongly advises combined treatment with daily low-dose aspirin and prophylactic-dose heparin (or LMWH), as well as prophylactic-dose anticoagulation for 6-12 weeks post partum. When patients have thrombotic APS, this combination treatment should contain heparin dose at a therapeutic level throughout pregnancy and postpartum. However, the authors conditionally recommend against giving low-dose aspirin plus prophylactic-dose heparin to women without obstetric APS. For refractory obstetric APS, the guideline also contains recommendations that are conditionally against treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin or an increased LMWH dose and strongly against adding prednisone to prophylactic-dose heparin or LMWH and low-dose aspirin. In pregnant patients with primary APS, the authors conditionally advise adding HCQ to prophylactic-dose heparin or LMWH and low-dose aspirin therapy. However, women with aPL who do not meet APS criteria or have another indication for HCQ are conditionally advised against prophylactic treatment with the antimalarial.

For women with Anti-Ro/SS-A and/or anti-La/SS-B antibodies in pregnancy, there is conditional advice to use HCQ. When there is no history of an infant with complete heart block or neonatal lupus erythematosus among women with these antibodies, the guideline conditionally advises serial fetal echocardiography (less often than weekly) starting between 16 and 18 weeks and continuing through 26 weeks, but this should be weekly when there is a prior history. Treatment with oral dexamethasone 4 mg daily is conditionally advised when there is echocardiographic evidence of fetal first- or second-degree heart block, but dexamethasone is not recommended when complete heart block is present.

Finally, in regard to medication use, the authors strongly recommend that men who are planning to be fathers continue on HCQ, azathioprine, 6‐mercaptopurine, colchicine, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Conditional treatment recommendations for men planning for pregnancy include methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid (MMF), leflunomide, sulfasalazine, calcineurin inhibitors, and NSAIDs. They also strongly recommend that this group of men discontinue CYC and thalidomide.

Pregnant women are strongly recommended to discontinue methotrexate, leflunomide (with cholestyramine washout if there are detectable serum levels of its metabolite prior to pregnancy or as soon as it is confirmed), MMF, CYC, and thalidomide within 3 months prior to conception, and they strongly recommend HCQ (in women with SLE), azathioprine/6‐mercaptopurine, colchicine, or sulfasalazine for use throughout pregnancy. They strongly recommend a combination of low‐dose aspirin and prophylactic‐dose heparin for pregnant women with obstetric APS, along with low‐dose aspirin and therapeutic‐dose heparin for women with thrombotic APS throughout pregnancy and postpartum. However, for women with SLE and those who test positive for aPL but do not meet criteria for obstetric or thrombotic APS, the authors conditionally recommend low-dose aspirin starting in the first trimester.

The guideline suggests that women with RMD should be encouraged to breastfeed if they are willing and able; they also suggest that disease control be maintained through lactation‐compatible medications and that the risks and benefits be reviewed on a patient-by-patient basis. Treatment with HCQ, colchicine, sulfasalazine, rituximab, and all tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are strongly recommended as being compatible with breastfeeding, and they strongly recommend against using CYC, leflunomide, MMF, and thalidomide while breastfeeding.

The authors acknowledged the limitations of their guideline, including the literature review being conducted on studies involving adults and an “inability to include recommendations for uncommon but important clinical situations,” including those involving transgender patients and hormonal therapies.

The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research support, consulting fees, speaking fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Sammaritano LR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41191.

A new guideline from the American College of Rheumatology offers the organization’s first clinical recommendations on how to manage reproductive health issues in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“With the development of this guideline, the ACR recognizes the key role of clinical rheumatologists not only in managing disease activity but also in understanding the interactions of RMDs and their therapies in the context of reproductive health,” wrote Lisa R. Sammaritano, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and coauthors. The guideline was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

To develop an evidence-based guideline on reproductive health in RMD patients, the researchers embarked on a systematic review of studies in areas like contraception, pregnancy and lactation, assisted reproductive technology (ART), fertility preservation, and hormone therapy. The guideline contains 12 ungraded good practice statements and 131 graded recommendations, all developed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

In counseling patients about these areas of care, the guideline says that rheumatologists and other clinicians “must collaborate with specialists in the fields of obstetrics-gynecology, maternal-fetal medicine, and reproductive endocrinology and infertility.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“One thing this guideline does well is highlight the importance of involving maternal-fetal medicine colleagues,” Alison Cahill, MD, a professor in the department of women’s health at the University of Texas at Austin and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist within UT Health Austin’s Women’s Health Institute, said when asked for comment on the guideline. “We’re always very happy to see patients ahead of time who are planning pregnancy to be able to discuss what the care plan would look like. And specifically, to address medications, if required, for their rheumatologic care.

“As we learn more and more,” she added, “we’ve come to understand that most treatments and medications are actually safe or relatively safe to take in pregnancy. Certainly, the benefit of taking them outweighs any small or theoretic risks. On the flip side, the guideline does a nice job of highlighting the importance of good disease control, both at the time of conception and during pregnancy.”
 

Contraception

In regard to contraception, the guideline strongly recommends the use of effective contraceptives – with a conditional recommendation of IUDs or a subdermal progestin implant – in fertile women with a RMD who have neither systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) nor positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL). They also strongly recommend discussing the use of emergency contraception with all RMD patients.

For SLE patients, the guideline strongly recommends the use of effective contraceptives in those with stable or low disease activity who are not positive for aPL. They also strongly recommend progestin‐only or IUD contraceptives over combined estrogen‐progestin contraception. For aPL-positive patients, the guideline strongly recommends against combined estrogen‐progestin contraceptives and for levonorgestrel or copper IUDs or the progestin‐only pill.
 

Assisted reproductive technology

In regard to ART, the guideline strongly recommends proceeding as needed in aPL-negative women with uncomplicated, stable RMD who are on pregnancy‐compatible medications. They also strongly recommend deferring ART in any RMD patients with moderately or severely active disease.

For aPL-positive patients undergoing ART procedures, they strongly recommend prophylactic anticoagulation with heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in women with obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and therapeutic anticoagulation in women with thrombotic APS. In patients undergoing embryo and oocyte cryopreservation, they strongly recommend continuing immunosuppressive and biologic therapies – the exception being cyclophosphamide (CYC) – for anyone in stable condition.
 

Fertility preservation

In regard to fertility preservation in patients taking CYC, the guideline strongly suggests sperm cryopreservation as good practice prior to treatment. They also conditionally recommend monthly gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonist cotherapy in premenopausal women with RMD.

Hormone therapy

In regard to menopause and hormone therapy, the guideline strongly suggests hormone therapy as good practice in postmenopausal women with RMD, without SLE or positive aPL, and who have severe vasomotor symptoms. Hormone therapy is conditionally recommended in patients with SLE, without positive aPL, and with no contraindications. For aPL-positive patients, they strongly recommend against hormone therapy in women with obstetric and/or thrombotic APS.

Pregnancy assessment and management

Among the many recommendations regarding pregnancy assessment and management, the guideline strongly suggests counseling women with RMD who are considering pregnancy to take into account the improved outcomes for pregnant women with low disease activity. They strongly recommend that women considering pregnancy should switch to pregnancy‐compatible medication and pause to assess its efficacy and tolerability before moving forward, along with strongly recommending that pregnant women with active disease initiate or continue a pregnancy‐compatible steroid‐sparing medication. They also recommend testing for anti‐Ro/SS-A and anti‐La/SS-B in women with SLE, Sjögren’s syndrome, systemic sclerosis, or rheumatoid arthritis, but only once and only before or early in the pregnancy.

For women with systemic sclerosis who develop scleroderma renal crisis during pregnancy, the authors strongly advise using ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers “because the risk of maternal or fetal death with untreated disease is higher than the risk associated with use of these medications during pregnancy.”

Among women with SLE, the recommendations strongly call for testing either before or early in pregnancy for anticardiolipin antibody, anti–beta2-glycoprotein I, or positive lupus anticoagulant, as well as initiating or continuing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) if possible. Starting in the first trimester, the authors also conditionally recommend that SLE patients take low-dose aspirin daily

For pregnant women who test positive for aPL but do not meet criteria for obstetric or thrombotic APS, the guideline conditionally recommends prophylactic treatment with low-dose aspirin daily to protect against preeclampsia. When obstetric APS criteria are met, the guideline strongly advises combined treatment with daily low-dose aspirin and prophylactic-dose heparin (or LMWH), as well as prophylactic-dose anticoagulation for 6-12 weeks post partum. When patients have thrombotic APS, this combination treatment should contain heparin dose at a therapeutic level throughout pregnancy and postpartum. However, the authors conditionally recommend against giving low-dose aspirin plus prophylactic-dose heparin to women without obstetric APS. For refractory obstetric APS, the guideline also contains recommendations that are conditionally against treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin or an increased LMWH dose and strongly against adding prednisone to prophylactic-dose heparin or LMWH and low-dose aspirin. In pregnant patients with primary APS, the authors conditionally advise adding HCQ to prophylactic-dose heparin or LMWH and low-dose aspirin therapy. However, women with aPL who do not meet APS criteria or have another indication for HCQ are conditionally advised against prophylactic treatment with the antimalarial.

For women with Anti-Ro/SS-A and/or anti-La/SS-B antibodies in pregnancy, there is conditional advice to use HCQ. When there is no history of an infant with complete heart block or neonatal lupus erythematosus among women with these antibodies, the guideline conditionally advises serial fetal echocardiography (less often than weekly) starting between 16 and 18 weeks and continuing through 26 weeks, but this should be weekly when there is a prior history. Treatment with oral dexamethasone 4 mg daily is conditionally advised when there is echocardiographic evidence of fetal first- or second-degree heart block, but dexamethasone is not recommended when complete heart block is present.

Finally, in regard to medication use, the authors strongly recommend that men who are planning to be fathers continue on HCQ, azathioprine, 6‐mercaptopurine, colchicine, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Conditional treatment recommendations for men planning for pregnancy include methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid (MMF), leflunomide, sulfasalazine, calcineurin inhibitors, and NSAIDs. They also strongly recommend that this group of men discontinue CYC and thalidomide.

Pregnant women are strongly recommended to discontinue methotrexate, leflunomide (with cholestyramine washout if there are detectable serum levels of its metabolite prior to pregnancy or as soon as it is confirmed), MMF, CYC, and thalidomide within 3 months prior to conception, and they strongly recommend HCQ (in women with SLE), azathioprine/6‐mercaptopurine, colchicine, or sulfasalazine for use throughout pregnancy. They strongly recommend a combination of low‐dose aspirin and prophylactic‐dose heparin for pregnant women with obstetric APS, along with low‐dose aspirin and therapeutic‐dose heparin for women with thrombotic APS throughout pregnancy and postpartum. However, for women with SLE and those who test positive for aPL but do not meet criteria for obstetric or thrombotic APS, the authors conditionally recommend low-dose aspirin starting in the first trimester.

The guideline suggests that women with RMD should be encouraged to breastfeed if they are willing and able; they also suggest that disease control be maintained through lactation‐compatible medications and that the risks and benefits be reviewed on a patient-by-patient basis. Treatment with HCQ, colchicine, sulfasalazine, rituximab, and all tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are strongly recommended as being compatible with breastfeeding, and they strongly recommend against using CYC, leflunomide, MMF, and thalidomide while breastfeeding.

The authors acknowledged the limitations of their guideline, including the literature review being conducted on studies involving adults and an “inability to include recommendations for uncommon but important clinical situations,” including those involving transgender patients and hormonal therapies.

The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research support, consulting fees, speaking fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Sammaritano LR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41191.

A new guideline from the American College of Rheumatology offers the organization’s first clinical recommendations on how to manage reproductive health issues in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“With the development of this guideline, the ACR recognizes the key role of clinical rheumatologists not only in managing disease activity but also in understanding the interactions of RMDs and their therapies in the context of reproductive health,” wrote Lisa R. Sammaritano, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and coauthors. The guideline was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

To develop an evidence-based guideline on reproductive health in RMD patients, the researchers embarked on a systematic review of studies in areas like contraception, pregnancy and lactation, assisted reproductive technology (ART), fertility preservation, and hormone therapy. The guideline contains 12 ungraded good practice statements and 131 graded recommendations, all developed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

In counseling patients about these areas of care, the guideline says that rheumatologists and other clinicians “must collaborate with specialists in the fields of obstetrics-gynecology, maternal-fetal medicine, and reproductive endocrinology and infertility.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“One thing this guideline does well is highlight the importance of involving maternal-fetal medicine colleagues,” Alison Cahill, MD, a professor in the department of women’s health at the University of Texas at Austin and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist within UT Health Austin’s Women’s Health Institute, said when asked for comment on the guideline. “We’re always very happy to see patients ahead of time who are planning pregnancy to be able to discuss what the care plan would look like. And specifically, to address medications, if required, for their rheumatologic care.

“As we learn more and more,” she added, “we’ve come to understand that most treatments and medications are actually safe or relatively safe to take in pregnancy. Certainly, the benefit of taking them outweighs any small or theoretic risks. On the flip side, the guideline does a nice job of highlighting the importance of good disease control, both at the time of conception and during pregnancy.”
 

Contraception

In regard to contraception, the guideline strongly recommends the use of effective contraceptives – with a conditional recommendation of IUDs or a subdermal progestin implant – in fertile women with a RMD who have neither systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) nor positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL). They also strongly recommend discussing the use of emergency contraception with all RMD patients.

For SLE patients, the guideline strongly recommends the use of effective contraceptives in those with stable or low disease activity who are not positive for aPL. They also strongly recommend progestin‐only or IUD contraceptives over combined estrogen‐progestin contraception. For aPL-positive patients, the guideline strongly recommends against combined estrogen‐progestin contraceptives and for levonorgestrel or copper IUDs or the progestin‐only pill.
 

Assisted reproductive technology

In regard to ART, the guideline strongly recommends proceeding as needed in aPL-negative women with uncomplicated, stable RMD who are on pregnancy‐compatible medications. They also strongly recommend deferring ART in any RMD patients with moderately or severely active disease.

For aPL-positive patients undergoing ART procedures, they strongly recommend prophylactic anticoagulation with heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in women with obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and therapeutic anticoagulation in women with thrombotic APS. In patients undergoing embryo and oocyte cryopreservation, they strongly recommend continuing immunosuppressive and biologic therapies – the exception being cyclophosphamide (CYC) – for anyone in stable condition.
 

Fertility preservation

In regard to fertility preservation in patients taking CYC, the guideline strongly suggests sperm cryopreservation as good practice prior to treatment. They also conditionally recommend monthly gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonist cotherapy in premenopausal women with RMD.

Hormone therapy

In regard to menopause and hormone therapy, the guideline strongly suggests hormone therapy as good practice in postmenopausal women with RMD, without SLE or positive aPL, and who have severe vasomotor symptoms. Hormone therapy is conditionally recommended in patients with SLE, without positive aPL, and with no contraindications. For aPL-positive patients, they strongly recommend against hormone therapy in women with obstetric and/or thrombotic APS.

Pregnancy assessment and management

Among the many recommendations regarding pregnancy assessment and management, the guideline strongly suggests counseling women with RMD who are considering pregnancy to take into account the improved outcomes for pregnant women with low disease activity. They strongly recommend that women considering pregnancy should switch to pregnancy‐compatible medication and pause to assess its efficacy and tolerability before moving forward, along with strongly recommending that pregnant women with active disease initiate or continue a pregnancy‐compatible steroid‐sparing medication. They also recommend testing for anti‐Ro/SS-A and anti‐La/SS-B in women with SLE, Sjögren’s syndrome, systemic sclerosis, or rheumatoid arthritis, but only once and only before or early in the pregnancy.

For women with systemic sclerosis who develop scleroderma renal crisis during pregnancy, the authors strongly advise using ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers “because the risk of maternal or fetal death with untreated disease is higher than the risk associated with use of these medications during pregnancy.”

Among women with SLE, the recommendations strongly call for testing either before or early in pregnancy for anticardiolipin antibody, anti–beta2-glycoprotein I, or positive lupus anticoagulant, as well as initiating or continuing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) if possible. Starting in the first trimester, the authors also conditionally recommend that SLE patients take low-dose aspirin daily

For pregnant women who test positive for aPL but do not meet criteria for obstetric or thrombotic APS, the guideline conditionally recommends prophylactic treatment with low-dose aspirin daily to protect against preeclampsia. When obstetric APS criteria are met, the guideline strongly advises combined treatment with daily low-dose aspirin and prophylactic-dose heparin (or LMWH), as well as prophylactic-dose anticoagulation for 6-12 weeks post partum. When patients have thrombotic APS, this combination treatment should contain heparin dose at a therapeutic level throughout pregnancy and postpartum. However, the authors conditionally recommend against giving low-dose aspirin plus prophylactic-dose heparin to women without obstetric APS. For refractory obstetric APS, the guideline also contains recommendations that are conditionally against treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin or an increased LMWH dose and strongly against adding prednisone to prophylactic-dose heparin or LMWH and low-dose aspirin. In pregnant patients with primary APS, the authors conditionally advise adding HCQ to prophylactic-dose heparin or LMWH and low-dose aspirin therapy. However, women with aPL who do not meet APS criteria or have another indication for HCQ are conditionally advised against prophylactic treatment with the antimalarial.

For women with Anti-Ro/SS-A and/or anti-La/SS-B antibodies in pregnancy, there is conditional advice to use HCQ. When there is no history of an infant with complete heart block or neonatal lupus erythematosus among women with these antibodies, the guideline conditionally advises serial fetal echocardiography (less often than weekly) starting between 16 and 18 weeks and continuing through 26 weeks, but this should be weekly when there is a prior history. Treatment with oral dexamethasone 4 mg daily is conditionally advised when there is echocardiographic evidence of fetal first- or second-degree heart block, but dexamethasone is not recommended when complete heart block is present.

Finally, in regard to medication use, the authors strongly recommend that men who are planning to be fathers continue on HCQ, azathioprine, 6‐mercaptopurine, colchicine, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Conditional treatment recommendations for men planning for pregnancy include methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid (MMF), leflunomide, sulfasalazine, calcineurin inhibitors, and NSAIDs. They also strongly recommend that this group of men discontinue CYC and thalidomide.

Pregnant women are strongly recommended to discontinue methotrexate, leflunomide (with cholestyramine washout if there are detectable serum levels of its metabolite prior to pregnancy or as soon as it is confirmed), MMF, CYC, and thalidomide within 3 months prior to conception, and they strongly recommend HCQ (in women with SLE), azathioprine/6‐mercaptopurine, colchicine, or sulfasalazine for use throughout pregnancy. They strongly recommend a combination of low‐dose aspirin and prophylactic‐dose heparin for pregnant women with obstetric APS, along with low‐dose aspirin and therapeutic‐dose heparin for women with thrombotic APS throughout pregnancy and postpartum. However, for women with SLE and those who test positive for aPL but do not meet criteria for obstetric or thrombotic APS, the authors conditionally recommend low-dose aspirin starting in the first trimester.

The guideline suggests that women with RMD should be encouraged to breastfeed if they are willing and able; they also suggest that disease control be maintained through lactation‐compatible medications and that the risks and benefits be reviewed on a patient-by-patient basis. Treatment with HCQ, colchicine, sulfasalazine, rituximab, and all tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are strongly recommended as being compatible with breastfeeding, and they strongly recommend against using CYC, leflunomide, MMF, and thalidomide while breastfeeding.

The authors acknowledged the limitations of their guideline, including the literature review being conducted on studies involving adults and an “inability to include recommendations for uncommon but important clinical situations,” including those involving transgender patients and hormonal therapies.

The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research support, consulting fees, speaking fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Sammaritano LR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41191.

Latest guidelines on the treatment of osteoporosis have been released that include new recommendations for the use of romosozumab (Evenity) in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, but they contain caveats as to which women should – and should not – receive the drug.

The updated clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society is in response to the approval of romosozumab by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2019, and more recently, by the European Medicines Agency.

It was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In the new guidelines, committee members recommend the use of romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture. Candidates would include women with severe osteoporosis (T-score of less than –2.5 and a prior fracture) or women with a history of multiple vertebral fractures.

Women should be treated with romosozumab for up to 1 year, followed by an antiresorptive agent to maintain bone mineral density gains and further reduce fracture risk.

“The recommended dosage is 210 mg monthly by subcutaneous injection for 12 months,” the authors wrote.

However, and very importantly, romosozumab should not be considered for women at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cerebrovascular disease. A high risk of CVD includes women who have had a previous myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Experts questioned by Medscape Medical News stressed that romosozumab should not be a first-line, or even generally a second-line, option for osteoporosis, but it can be a considered for select patients with severe osteoporosis, taking into account CV risk.

Boxed warning

In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), there were more major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the first year of the trial with romosozumab, and patients had a 31% higher risk of MACE with romosozumab, compared with the bisphosphonate alendronate.

As a result, the drug was initially rejected by a number of regulatory agencies.

In the United States and Canada, it was eventually approved with a boxed warning, which cautions against the use of the drug in patients at risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD-related death.

“Romosozumab offers promising results for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis or who have a history of fractures,” Clifford Rosen, MD, Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough and chair of the writing committee, said in an Endocrine Society statement. “It does, however, come with a risk of heart disease, so clinicians need to be careful when selecting patients for this therapy.”

Exact risk unknown

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment, Kenneth Saag, MD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the ARCH study, said that physicians needed more data from real-world studies to resolve the issue around whether romosozumab heightens the risk of CV events in women with osteoporosis or whether that particular finding from ARCH was an artifact.

“Women who have had a recent cardiovascular event should not receive the drug,” he said, agreeing with the new guidelines.

But it remains unclear, for example, whether women who are at slightly higher risk of having a CV event by virtue of their age alone, are also at risk, he noted.

In the meantime, results from the ARCH study clearly showed that not only was romosozumab more effective than alendronate, “but it is more effective than other bone-building drugs as well,” Dr. Saag observed, and it leads to a significantly greater reduction in vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with the alendronate, the current standard of care in osteoporosis.

“In patients who have very severe osteoporosis and who have had a recent fracture or who are at risk for imminent future fracture, physicians need to balance the benefit versus the risk in favor of using romosozumab,” Dr. Saag suggested.

“And while I would say most women prefer not to inject themselves, the women I have put on this medicine have all had recent fractures and they are very aware of the pain and the disability of having a broken bone, so it is something they are willing to do,” he added.
 

Not for all women

Giving his opinion, Bart Clarke, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, underscored the fact that the Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis (FRAME), again conducted in postmenopausal women, showed no increase in CV events in patients treated with romosozumab compared with placebo.

“So there are questions about what this means, because if these events really were a drug effect, then that effect would be even more evident compared with placebo and they did not see any signal of CV events [in FRAME],” said Dr. Clarke, past president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.

Like everything else in medicine, “there is always some risk,” Dr. Clarke observed.

However, what physicians should do is talk to women, ensure they have not had either an MI or stroke in the last year, and if patients have severe osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture, “then we can say, here’s another option,” he suggested.

“Then, if a woman develops chest pain or shortness of breath while on the drug, [she needs] to let us know ,and then we’ll stop the drug and reassess the situation,” he added.

Dr. Clarke also pointed out that if the FDA had received further reports of CV events linked to romosozumab, physicians would know about it by now, but to his knowledge, there has been no change to the drug’s current warning label.

Furthermore, neither he nor any of his colleagues who treat metabolic bone disease at the Mayo Clinic has seen a single CV event in patients prescribed the agent.

“This is not a drug we would use as first-line for most patients, and we don’t even use it as second-line for most patients, but in people who have not responded to other drugs or who have had terrible things happen to them already, hip fracture especially, then we are saying, you can consider this, he concluded.

The guidelines were supported by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Clarke reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Saag reported receiving grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Radius, and is a consultant for Amgen, Radius, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Latest guidelines on the treatment of osteoporosis have been released that include new recommendations for the use of romosozumab (Evenity) in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, but they contain caveats as to which women should – and should not – receive the drug.

The updated clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society is in response to the approval of romosozumab by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2019, and more recently, by the European Medicines Agency.

It was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In the new guidelines, committee members recommend the use of romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture. Candidates would include women with severe osteoporosis (T-score of less than –2.5 and a prior fracture) or women with a history of multiple vertebral fractures.

Women should be treated with romosozumab for up to 1 year, followed by an antiresorptive agent to maintain bone mineral density gains and further reduce fracture risk.

“The recommended dosage is 210 mg monthly by subcutaneous injection for 12 months,” the authors wrote.

However, and very importantly, romosozumab should not be considered for women at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cerebrovascular disease. A high risk of CVD includes women who have had a previous myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Experts questioned by Medscape Medical News stressed that romosozumab should not be a first-line, or even generally a second-line, option for osteoporosis, but it can be a considered for select patients with severe osteoporosis, taking into account CV risk.

Boxed warning

In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), there were more major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the first year of the trial with romosozumab, and patients had a 31% higher risk of MACE with romosozumab, compared with the bisphosphonate alendronate.

As a result, the drug was initially rejected by a number of regulatory agencies.

In the United States and Canada, it was eventually approved with a boxed warning, which cautions against the use of the drug in patients at risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD-related death.

“Romosozumab offers promising results for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis or who have a history of fractures,” Clifford Rosen, MD, Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough and chair of the writing committee, said in an Endocrine Society statement. “It does, however, come with a risk of heart disease, so clinicians need to be careful when selecting patients for this therapy.”

Exact risk unknown

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment, Kenneth Saag, MD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the ARCH study, said that physicians needed more data from real-world studies to resolve the issue around whether romosozumab heightens the risk of CV events in women with osteoporosis or whether that particular finding from ARCH was an artifact.

“Women who have had a recent cardiovascular event should not receive the drug,” he said, agreeing with the new guidelines.

But it remains unclear, for example, whether women who are at slightly higher risk of having a CV event by virtue of their age alone, are also at risk, he noted.

In the meantime, results from the ARCH study clearly showed that not only was romosozumab more effective than alendronate, “but it is more effective than other bone-building drugs as well,” Dr. Saag observed, and it leads to a significantly greater reduction in vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with the alendronate, the current standard of care in osteoporosis.

“In patients who have very severe osteoporosis and who have had a recent fracture or who are at risk for imminent future fracture, physicians need to balance the benefit versus the risk in favor of using romosozumab,” Dr. Saag suggested.

“And while I would say most women prefer not to inject themselves, the women I have put on this medicine have all had recent fractures and they are very aware of the pain and the disability of having a broken bone, so it is something they are willing to do,” he added.
 

Not for all women

Giving his opinion, Bart Clarke, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, underscored the fact that the Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis (FRAME), again conducted in postmenopausal women, showed no increase in CV events in patients treated with romosozumab compared with placebo.

“So there are questions about what this means, because if these events really were a drug effect, then that effect would be even more evident compared with placebo and they did not see any signal of CV events [in FRAME],” said Dr. Clarke, past president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.

Like everything else in medicine, “there is always some risk,” Dr. Clarke observed.

However, what physicians should do is talk to women, ensure they have not had either an MI or stroke in the last year, and if patients have severe osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture, “then we can say, here’s another option,” he suggested.

“Then, if a woman develops chest pain or shortness of breath while on the drug, [she needs] to let us know ,and then we’ll stop the drug and reassess the situation,” he added.

Dr. Clarke also pointed out that if the FDA had received further reports of CV events linked to romosozumab, physicians would know about it by now, but to his knowledge, there has been no change to the drug’s current warning label.

Furthermore, neither he nor any of his colleagues who treat metabolic bone disease at the Mayo Clinic has seen a single CV event in patients prescribed the agent.

“This is not a drug we would use as first-line for most patients, and we don’t even use it as second-line for most patients, but in people who have not responded to other drugs or who have had terrible things happen to them already, hip fracture especially, then we are saying, you can consider this, he concluded.

The guidelines were supported by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Clarke reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Saag reported receiving grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Radius, and is a consultant for Amgen, Radius, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Latest guidelines on the treatment of osteoporosis have been released that include new recommendations for the use of romosozumab (Evenity) in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, but they contain caveats as to which women should – and should not – receive the drug.

The updated clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society is in response to the approval of romosozumab by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2019, and more recently, by the European Medicines Agency.

It was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In the new guidelines, committee members recommend the use of romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture. Candidates would include women with severe osteoporosis (T-score of less than –2.5 and a prior fracture) or women with a history of multiple vertebral fractures.

Women should be treated with romosozumab for up to 1 year, followed by an antiresorptive agent to maintain bone mineral density gains and further reduce fracture risk.

“The recommended dosage is 210 mg monthly by subcutaneous injection for 12 months,” the authors wrote.

However, and very importantly, romosozumab should not be considered for women at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cerebrovascular disease. A high risk of CVD includes women who have had a previous myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Experts questioned by Medscape Medical News stressed that romosozumab should not be a first-line, or even generally a second-line, option for osteoporosis, but it can be a considered for select patients with severe osteoporosis, taking into account CV risk.

Boxed warning

In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), there were more major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the first year of the trial with romosozumab, and patients had a 31% higher risk of MACE with romosozumab, compared with the bisphosphonate alendronate.

As a result, the drug was initially rejected by a number of regulatory agencies.

In the United States and Canada, it was eventually approved with a boxed warning, which cautions against the use of the drug in patients at risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD-related death.

“Romosozumab offers promising results for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis or who have a history of fractures,” Clifford Rosen, MD, Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough and chair of the writing committee, said in an Endocrine Society statement. “It does, however, come with a risk of heart disease, so clinicians need to be careful when selecting patients for this therapy.”

Exact risk unknown

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment, Kenneth Saag, MD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the ARCH study, said that physicians needed more data from real-world studies to resolve the issue around whether romosozumab heightens the risk of CV events in women with osteoporosis or whether that particular finding from ARCH was an artifact.

“Women who have had a recent cardiovascular event should not receive the drug,” he said, agreeing with the new guidelines.

But it remains unclear, for example, whether women who are at slightly higher risk of having a CV event by virtue of their age alone, are also at risk, he noted.

In the meantime, results from the ARCH study clearly showed that not only was romosozumab more effective than alendronate, “but it is more effective than other bone-building drugs as well,” Dr. Saag observed, and it leads to a significantly greater reduction in vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with the alendronate, the current standard of care in osteoporosis.

“In patients who have very severe osteoporosis and who have had a recent fracture or who are at risk for imminent future fracture, physicians need to balance the benefit versus the risk in favor of using romosozumab,” Dr. Saag suggested.

“And while I would say most women prefer not to inject themselves, the women I have put on this medicine have all had recent fractures and they are very aware of the pain and the disability of having a broken bone, so it is something they are willing to do,” he added.
 

Not for all women

Giving his opinion, Bart Clarke, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, underscored the fact that the Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis (FRAME), again conducted in postmenopausal women, showed no increase in CV events in patients treated with romosozumab compared with placebo.

“So there are questions about what this means, because if these events really were a drug effect, then that effect would be even more evident compared with placebo and they did not see any signal of CV events [in FRAME],” said Dr. Clarke, past president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.

Like everything else in medicine, “there is always some risk,” Dr. Clarke observed.

However, what physicians should do is talk to women, ensure they have not had either an MI or stroke in the last year, and if patients have severe osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture, “then we can say, here’s another option,” he suggested.

“Then, if a woman develops chest pain or shortness of breath while on the drug, [she needs] to let us know ,and then we’ll stop the drug and reassess the situation,” he added.

Dr. Clarke also pointed out that if the FDA had received further reports of CV events linked to romosozumab, physicians would know about it by now, but to his knowledge, there has been no change to the drug’s current warning label.

Furthermore, neither he nor any of his colleagues who treat metabolic bone disease at the Mayo Clinic has seen a single CV event in patients prescribed the agent.

“This is not a drug we would use as first-line for most patients, and we don’t even use it as second-line for most patients, but in people who have not responded to other drugs or who have had terrible things happen to them already, hip fracture especially, then we are saying, you can consider this, he concluded.

The guidelines were supported by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Clarke reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Saag reported receiving grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Radius, and is a consultant for Amgen, Radius, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MAUI, HAWAII – The interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab made a strong showing versus the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in the 52-week, randomized, head-to-head phase 3b EXCEED study, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, reported at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

EXCEED was the first double-blind, randomized comparison of an IL-17A inhibitor versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor as first-line biologic monotherapy in 853 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients with an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. And while secukinumab (Cosentyx) narrowly failed to demonstrate superiority over adalimumab (Humira) on the primary endpoint of at least a 20% improvement over baseline on American College of Rheumatology disease criteria at 52 weeks, or ACR20 response, the IL-17A inhibitor demonstrated far greater efficacy for the skin disease, noted Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist who is professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and RWCS program director. Patients received standard dosing of either drug: secukinumab at 300 mg every 4 weeks or adalimumab at 40 mg every 2 weeks.

Dr. Kavanaugh, an EXCEED coinvestigator, characterized the articular outcomes as similar in the two study arms. The ACR20 primary outcome rate was 67.4% in the secukinumab-treated patients and 61.5% with adalimumab, a difference that didn’t quite reach statistical significance (P = .07). However, in a prespecified secondary analysis of ACR20 rates based upon nonresponder imputation – the most conservative method of statistical analysis, in which all subjects who don’t complete the full study period are counted as treatment failures – secukinumab proved superior to adalimumab by a margin of 66.9% versus 59.5% (P = .02). That result was heavily influenced by the significantly higher dropout rate in the adalimumab group: 23.7%, compared with 14.2% in the secukinumab group.

The ACR50 response rate was 49% in the secukinumab group and 44.6% with adalimumab, a nonsignificant difference. Enthesitis resolution rates at 52 weeks were 60.5% and 54.2%, respectively, also a nonsignificant difference. The mean improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index scores was closely similar in the two groups. However, a 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, or PASI90 response, was achieved in 65.4% of the secukinumab group, far better than the 43.2% rate with adalimumab.

Dr. Kavanaugh observed that the EXCEED outcomes are consistent with the recently published 24-week results of the SPIRIT-H2H trial, an open-label, assessor-blinded randomized comparison of adalimumab versus another IL-17A inhibitor, ixekizumab (Taltz), in 566 PsA patients. Ixekizumab proved superior to adalimumab for the primary composite endpoint composed of an ACR50 response and simultaneous achievement of a PASI100 response, with rates of 36% and 28%, respectively. The ACR50 rates were similar for the two biologics, while the skin results were superior with ixekizumab.

Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said that, taken together, the EXCEED and SPIRIT-H2H results raise an important issue for clinical practice: Even though both secukinumab and ixekizumab are approved for the treatment of PsA, rheumatologists tend to reflexively reach for a TNF inhibitor as the first biologic in affected patients.

“I don’t know that that necessarily needs to be so. There’s absolutely no reason why an IL-17 inhibitor shouldn’t be equally an option as first-line treatment when you think about starting a biologic in these patients. It’s inertia: We like what we like, we do what we’ve been doing for a long time,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Indeed, an IL-17A inhibitor may actually be a better first-line option in certain circumstances, such as in the PsA patient with more extensive skin involvement, he continued. Also, there is a possibility that the IL-17A inhibitors are less immunogenic than the anti-TNF biologics, which may result in a more durable response. This concept, while still speculative, is supported by the recently published results of the long-term extension of the phase 3 FUTURE 1 study, in which 82% of patients randomized to secukinumab were still on the biologic after 5 years. That’s a far better retention rate than is seen with TNF inhibitors, he noted.

In addition, SPIRIT-H2H participants randomized to ixekizumab didn’t derive added benefit from concomitant methotrexate, while those on adalimumab did. Thus, PsA patients who desire a simpler, methotrexate-free regimen may prefer an IL-17A inhibitor, Dr. Ruderman said.

Dr. Kavanaugh noted that differences in the side effect profiles of the two classes of biologics may be relevant in treatment decisions. The TNF inhibitors have a higher risk of serious infections than do the IL-17A inhibitors, which in turn are associated with more Candida infections.

Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Novartis, which sponsored EXCEED, as well as more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant to Pfizer.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab made a strong showing versus the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in the 52-week, randomized, head-to-head phase 3b EXCEED study, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, reported at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

EXCEED was the first double-blind, randomized comparison of an IL-17A inhibitor versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor as first-line biologic monotherapy in 853 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients with an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. And while secukinumab (Cosentyx) narrowly failed to demonstrate superiority over adalimumab (Humira) on the primary endpoint of at least a 20% improvement over baseline on American College of Rheumatology disease criteria at 52 weeks, or ACR20 response, the IL-17A inhibitor demonstrated far greater efficacy for the skin disease, noted Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist who is professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and RWCS program director. Patients received standard dosing of either drug: secukinumab at 300 mg every 4 weeks or adalimumab at 40 mg every 2 weeks.

Dr. Kavanaugh, an EXCEED coinvestigator, characterized the articular outcomes as similar in the two study arms. The ACR20 primary outcome rate was 67.4% in the secukinumab-treated patients and 61.5% with adalimumab, a difference that didn’t quite reach statistical significance (P = .07). However, in a prespecified secondary analysis of ACR20 rates based upon nonresponder imputation – the most conservative method of statistical analysis, in which all subjects who don’t complete the full study period are counted as treatment failures – secukinumab proved superior to adalimumab by a margin of 66.9% versus 59.5% (P = .02). That result was heavily influenced by the significantly higher dropout rate in the adalimumab group: 23.7%, compared with 14.2% in the secukinumab group.

The ACR50 response rate was 49% in the secukinumab group and 44.6% with adalimumab, a nonsignificant difference. Enthesitis resolution rates at 52 weeks were 60.5% and 54.2%, respectively, also a nonsignificant difference. The mean improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index scores was closely similar in the two groups. However, a 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, or PASI90 response, was achieved in 65.4% of the secukinumab group, far better than the 43.2% rate with adalimumab.

Dr. Kavanaugh observed that the EXCEED outcomes are consistent with the recently published 24-week results of the SPIRIT-H2H trial, an open-label, assessor-blinded randomized comparison of adalimumab versus another IL-17A inhibitor, ixekizumab (Taltz), in 566 PsA patients. Ixekizumab proved superior to adalimumab for the primary composite endpoint composed of an ACR50 response and simultaneous achievement of a PASI100 response, with rates of 36% and 28%, respectively. The ACR50 rates were similar for the two biologics, while the skin results were superior with ixekizumab.

Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said that, taken together, the EXCEED and SPIRIT-H2H results raise an important issue for clinical practice: Even though both secukinumab and ixekizumab are approved for the treatment of PsA, rheumatologists tend to reflexively reach for a TNF inhibitor as the first biologic in affected patients.

“I don’t know that that necessarily needs to be so. There’s absolutely no reason why an IL-17 inhibitor shouldn’t be equally an option as first-line treatment when you think about starting a biologic in these patients. It’s inertia: We like what we like, we do what we’ve been doing for a long time,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Indeed, an IL-17A inhibitor may actually be a better first-line option in certain circumstances, such as in the PsA patient with more extensive skin involvement, he continued. Also, there is a possibility that the IL-17A inhibitors are less immunogenic than the anti-TNF biologics, which may result in a more durable response. This concept, while still speculative, is supported by the recently published results of the long-term extension of the phase 3 FUTURE 1 study, in which 82% of patients randomized to secukinumab were still on the biologic after 5 years. That’s a far better retention rate than is seen with TNF inhibitors, he noted.

In addition, SPIRIT-H2H participants randomized to ixekizumab didn’t derive added benefit from concomitant methotrexate, while those on adalimumab did. Thus, PsA patients who desire a simpler, methotrexate-free regimen may prefer an IL-17A inhibitor, Dr. Ruderman said.

Dr. Kavanaugh noted that differences in the side effect profiles of the two classes of biologics may be relevant in treatment decisions. The TNF inhibitors have a higher risk of serious infections than do the IL-17A inhibitors, which in turn are associated with more Candida infections.

Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Novartis, which sponsored EXCEED, as well as more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant to Pfizer.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab made a strong showing versus the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in the 52-week, randomized, head-to-head phase 3b EXCEED study, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, reported at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

EXCEED was the first double-blind, randomized comparison of an IL-17A inhibitor versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor as first-line biologic monotherapy in 853 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients with an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. And while secukinumab (Cosentyx) narrowly failed to demonstrate superiority over adalimumab (Humira) on the primary endpoint of at least a 20% improvement over baseline on American College of Rheumatology disease criteria at 52 weeks, or ACR20 response, the IL-17A inhibitor demonstrated far greater efficacy for the skin disease, noted Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist who is professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and RWCS program director. Patients received standard dosing of either drug: secukinumab at 300 mg every 4 weeks or adalimumab at 40 mg every 2 weeks.

Dr. Kavanaugh, an EXCEED coinvestigator, characterized the articular outcomes as similar in the two study arms. The ACR20 primary outcome rate was 67.4% in the secukinumab-treated patients and 61.5% with adalimumab, a difference that didn’t quite reach statistical significance (P = .07). However, in a prespecified secondary analysis of ACR20 rates based upon nonresponder imputation – the most conservative method of statistical analysis, in which all subjects who don’t complete the full study period are counted as treatment failures – secukinumab proved superior to adalimumab by a margin of 66.9% versus 59.5% (P = .02). That result was heavily influenced by the significantly higher dropout rate in the adalimumab group: 23.7%, compared with 14.2% in the secukinumab group.

The ACR50 response rate was 49% in the secukinumab group and 44.6% with adalimumab, a nonsignificant difference. Enthesitis resolution rates at 52 weeks were 60.5% and 54.2%, respectively, also a nonsignificant difference. The mean improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index scores was closely similar in the two groups. However, a 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, or PASI90 response, was achieved in 65.4% of the secukinumab group, far better than the 43.2% rate with adalimumab.

Dr. Kavanaugh observed that the EXCEED outcomes are consistent with the recently published 24-week results of the SPIRIT-H2H trial, an open-label, assessor-blinded randomized comparison of adalimumab versus another IL-17A inhibitor, ixekizumab (Taltz), in 566 PsA patients. Ixekizumab proved superior to adalimumab for the primary composite endpoint composed of an ACR50 response and simultaneous achievement of a PASI100 response, with rates of 36% and 28%, respectively. The ACR50 rates were similar for the two biologics, while the skin results were superior with ixekizumab.

Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said that, taken together, the EXCEED and SPIRIT-H2H results raise an important issue for clinical practice: Even though both secukinumab and ixekizumab are approved for the treatment of PsA, rheumatologists tend to reflexively reach for a TNF inhibitor as the first biologic in affected patients.

“I don’t know that that necessarily needs to be so. There’s absolutely no reason why an IL-17 inhibitor shouldn’t be equally an option as first-line treatment when you think about starting a biologic in these patients. It’s inertia: We like what we like, we do what we’ve been doing for a long time,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Indeed, an IL-17A inhibitor may actually be a better first-line option in certain circumstances, such as in the PsA patient with more extensive skin involvement, he continued. Also, there is a possibility that the IL-17A inhibitors are less immunogenic than the anti-TNF biologics, which may result in a more durable response. This concept, while still speculative, is supported by the recently published results of the long-term extension of the phase 3 FUTURE 1 study, in which 82% of patients randomized to secukinumab were still on the biologic after 5 years. That’s a far better retention rate than is seen with TNF inhibitors, he noted.

In addition, SPIRIT-H2H participants randomized to ixekizumab didn’t derive added benefit from concomitant methotrexate, while those on adalimumab did. Thus, PsA patients who desire a simpler, methotrexate-free regimen may prefer an IL-17A inhibitor, Dr. Ruderman said.

Dr. Kavanaugh noted that differences in the side effect profiles of the two classes of biologics may be relevant in treatment decisions. The TNF inhibitors have a higher risk of serious infections than do the IL-17A inhibitors, which in turn are associated with more Candida infections.

Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Novartis, which sponsored EXCEED, as well as more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant to Pfizer.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoporosis affects about 15% of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the disease pattern is different than in the general population, said gastroenterologist Millie Long, MD, from the Department of Medicine at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

In the general population, those who develop osteoporosis are typically women who are thin and postmenopausal, and family history, smoking status, and alcohol use usually play a role, Long said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

But in the population with IBD, the risk for osteoporosis is similar in women and men, age plays a large role, and corticosteroid use seems to be a driving factor in the development of the disease, she explained.

A previous study that looked at fractures in patients with IBD showed that the risk “is 40% greater than in the general population,” Long reported. In patients younger than 40 years, the risk for fracture was 37% higher than in the general population, and this rate increased with age.
 

Preventing fractures

Fractures to the hip and spine are linked to significant morbidity, including hospitalization, major surgery, and even death, Long noted. But they are one of the preventable downstream effects of IBD, and patients need to understand that there’s something they can do about their elevated risk.

Patients should be educated on the importance of weight-bearing exercise and quitting smoking, she said.

“We need to think of preventive measures for anyone on more than 5 mg of prednisone a day for a time period of about 3 months,” she added. “Unfortunately, most of our patients meet this criterion.”

Patients with IBD should undergo dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to calculate bone density and establish the need for calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

“One of the things I’m starting to do in my practice is check vitamin D levels annually on my patients. I do this in the springtime and try to optimize their levels,” Long said.
 

Higher risk for herpes zoster

The risk for infection is also elevated in patients with IBD, including the risk for herpes zoster, which is already high, affecting one in three people in the general population.

In fact, the risk for herpes zoster in patients with IBD in their 20s is similar to the risk for people in their 50s in the general population. This is “something we need to be addressing in all of our patients,” said Long.

Physicians should emphasize the need for zoster vaccination in patients at least 50 years of age, and potentially younger patients on certain therapies, she added.

But because the Shingrix shingles vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline) is so much more powerful than the previous live vaccine, some have wondered whether it could stimulate an immune response, causing the IBD to flare after vaccination, she said.

However, a recent study of IBD patients followed for 207 days after shingles vaccination showed that only one of the 67 study participants (1.5%) experienced a flare. But fever is fairly common after the shot.

“I counsel my patients that they may feel pretty wiped out for 24 hours; they may have myalgias,” Long reported. “If you have someone who has to travel for work, you want them to time this vaccination so they can have a day of rest afterward. It’s the real deal.”
 

Screening for TB

Screening to rule out latent tuberculosis (TB) is also important in IBD.

“We should be looking at whether they’ve had close contact with active TB or people from endemic areas,” said Long. “The reason we really care about this is that the risk of serious infection is doubled with anti-TNF therapy.”

The treatment of latent TB prior to the initiation of an anti-TNF “reduces the incidence of active TB by over 80%. This is why it’s imperative to screen prior to initiation, and then periodically based on risk factors,” she explained.

“It’s profound how much maintenance is required for patients with IBD,” said Christopher Stanke, MD, from the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene.

He said he is particularly struck by the collective risks for younger patients with IBD.

“Young people look to us as their only doctor. They don’t even see their primary care physicians very often. We have to take over a lot of this stuff,” he told Medscape Medical News.

And osteoporosis doesn’t often get the attention it needs in gastroenterologists’ offices, he acknowledged.

“I often check it on people as they get close to 50 or 60,” said Stanke, who added that Long’s presentation is a good reminder that younger patients, especially those who have been on steroids for a while, need more attention.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoporosis affects about 15% of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the disease pattern is different than in the general population, said gastroenterologist Millie Long, MD, from the Department of Medicine at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

In the general population, those who develop osteoporosis are typically women who are thin and postmenopausal, and family history, smoking status, and alcohol use usually play a role, Long said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

But in the population with IBD, the risk for osteoporosis is similar in women and men, age plays a large role, and corticosteroid use seems to be a driving factor in the development of the disease, she explained.

A previous study that looked at fractures in patients with IBD showed that the risk “is 40% greater than in the general population,” Long reported. In patients younger than 40 years, the risk for fracture was 37% higher than in the general population, and this rate increased with age.
 

Preventing fractures

Fractures to the hip and spine are linked to significant morbidity, including hospitalization, major surgery, and even death, Long noted. But they are one of the preventable downstream effects of IBD, and patients need to understand that there’s something they can do about their elevated risk.

Patients should be educated on the importance of weight-bearing exercise and quitting smoking, she said.

“We need to think of preventive measures for anyone on more than 5 mg of prednisone a day for a time period of about 3 months,” she added. “Unfortunately, most of our patients meet this criterion.”

Patients with IBD should undergo dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to calculate bone density and establish the need for calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

“One of the things I’m starting to do in my practice is check vitamin D levels annually on my patients. I do this in the springtime and try to optimize their levels,” Long said.
 

Higher risk for herpes zoster

The risk for infection is also elevated in patients with IBD, including the risk for herpes zoster, which is already high, affecting one in three people in the general population.

In fact, the risk for herpes zoster in patients with IBD in their 20s is similar to the risk for people in their 50s in the general population. This is “something we need to be addressing in all of our patients,” said Long.

Physicians should emphasize the need for zoster vaccination in patients at least 50 years of age, and potentially younger patients on certain therapies, she added.

But because the Shingrix shingles vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline) is so much more powerful than the previous live vaccine, some have wondered whether it could stimulate an immune response, causing the IBD to flare after vaccination, she said.

However, a recent study of IBD patients followed for 207 days after shingles vaccination showed that only one of the 67 study participants (1.5%) experienced a flare. But fever is fairly common after the shot.

“I counsel my patients that they may feel pretty wiped out for 24 hours; they may have myalgias,” Long reported. “If you have someone who has to travel for work, you want them to time this vaccination so they can have a day of rest afterward. It’s the real deal.”
 

Screening for TB

Screening to rule out latent tuberculosis (TB) is also important in IBD.

“We should be looking at whether they’ve had close contact with active TB or people from endemic areas,” said Long. “The reason we really care about this is that the risk of serious infection is doubled with anti-TNF therapy.”

The treatment of latent TB prior to the initiation of an anti-TNF “reduces the incidence of active TB by over 80%. This is why it’s imperative to screen prior to initiation, and then periodically based on risk factors,” she explained.

“It’s profound how much maintenance is required for patients with IBD,” said Christopher Stanke, MD, from the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene.

He said he is particularly struck by the collective risks for younger patients with IBD.

“Young people look to us as their only doctor. They don’t even see their primary care physicians very often. We have to take over a lot of this stuff,” he told Medscape Medical News.

And osteoporosis doesn’t often get the attention it needs in gastroenterologists’ offices, he acknowledged.

“I often check it on people as they get close to 50 or 60,” said Stanke, who added that Long’s presentation is a good reminder that younger patients, especially those who have been on steroids for a while, need more attention.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoporosis affects about 15% of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the disease pattern is different than in the general population, said gastroenterologist Millie Long, MD, from the Department of Medicine at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

In the general population, those who develop osteoporosis are typically women who are thin and postmenopausal, and family history, smoking status, and alcohol use usually play a role, Long said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

But in the population with IBD, the risk for osteoporosis is similar in women and men, age plays a large role, and corticosteroid use seems to be a driving factor in the development of the disease, she explained.

A previous study that looked at fractures in patients with IBD showed that the risk “is 40% greater than in the general population,” Long reported. In patients younger than 40 years, the risk for fracture was 37% higher than in the general population, and this rate increased with age.
 

Preventing fractures

Fractures to the hip and spine are linked to significant morbidity, including hospitalization, major surgery, and even death, Long noted. But they are one of the preventable downstream effects of IBD, and patients need to understand that there’s something they can do about their elevated risk.

Patients should be educated on the importance of weight-bearing exercise and quitting smoking, she said.

“We need to think of preventive measures for anyone on more than 5 mg of prednisone a day for a time period of about 3 months,” she added. “Unfortunately, most of our patients meet this criterion.”

Patients with IBD should undergo dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to calculate bone density and establish the need for calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

“One of the things I’m starting to do in my practice is check vitamin D levels annually on my patients. I do this in the springtime and try to optimize their levels,” Long said.
 

Higher risk for herpes zoster

The risk for infection is also elevated in patients with IBD, including the risk for herpes zoster, which is already high, affecting one in three people in the general population.

In fact, the risk for herpes zoster in patients with IBD in their 20s is similar to the risk for people in their 50s in the general population. This is “something we need to be addressing in all of our patients,” said Long.

Physicians should emphasize the need for zoster vaccination in patients at least 50 years of age, and potentially younger patients on certain therapies, she added.

But because the Shingrix shingles vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline) is so much more powerful than the previous live vaccine, some have wondered whether it could stimulate an immune response, causing the IBD to flare after vaccination, she said.

However, a recent study of IBD patients followed for 207 days after shingles vaccination showed that only one of the 67 study participants (1.5%) experienced a flare. But fever is fairly common after the shot.

“I counsel my patients that they may feel pretty wiped out for 24 hours; they may have myalgias,” Long reported. “If you have someone who has to travel for work, you want them to time this vaccination so they can have a day of rest afterward. It’s the real deal.”
 

Screening for TB

Screening to rule out latent tuberculosis (TB) is also important in IBD.

“We should be looking at whether they’ve had close contact with active TB or people from endemic areas,” said Long. “The reason we really care about this is that the risk of serious infection is doubled with anti-TNF therapy.”

The treatment of latent TB prior to the initiation of an anti-TNF “reduces the incidence of active TB by over 80%. This is why it’s imperative to screen prior to initiation, and then periodically based on risk factors,” she explained.

“It’s profound how much maintenance is required for patients with IBD,” said Christopher Stanke, MD, from the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene.

He said he is particularly struck by the collective risks for younger patients with IBD.

“Young people look to us as their only doctor. They don’t even see their primary care physicians very often. We have to take over a lot of this stuff,” he told Medscape Medical News.

And osteoporosis doesn’t often get the attention it needs in gastroenterologists’ offices, he acknowledged.

“I often check it on people as they get close to 50 or 60,” said Stanke, who added that Long’s presentation is a good reminder that younger patients, especially those who have been on steroids for a while, need more attention.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

Implementing a more stringent treat‐to‐target strategy could provide better outcomes for patients with early RA, according to a recent comparative study.

The findings confirm the feasibility of adopting a treat‐to‐target approach to ensure optimal outcomes are achieved for patients with early-stage disease.

“The objective of the present study was to compare achievement of remission during 2 years of follow-up in two early RA cohorts implementing different treat‐to‐target strategies,” wrote Vibeke Norvang, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and colleagues. The findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis of data from the randomized ARCTIC trial and the Norwegian Very Early Arthritis Clinic (NOR-VEAC) observational study. The combined cohort included a total of 429 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive early RA patients, 189 and 330 from each study, respectively.

The American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Boolean remission criteria differed between the two cohorts, with more stringent criteria in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC. Remission was defined as scores of less than 1.6 and 2.6 on the Disease Activity Scores in 44 joints and 28 joints, respectively.

At 12- and 24-month follow-up, the researchers found that the odds of achieving remission were greater in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC (odds ratios, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.20 vs. OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.05-3.16).

“We found that more than half of patients in each cohort had reached the study-specific remission targets at 6 months, and this increased to more than 60% in each cohort at 12 and 24 months,” they reported.

With respect to drug therapy, all study patients started with methotrexate monotherapy at a mean dose of 16.0 mg and 15.5 mg in ARCTIC and NOR-VEAC, respectively. In addition, similar rates of escalation to a biologic DMARD were observed in both studies (25.6% vs. 25.4%) at 24 months.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was comparing outcomes in two cohorts with different study designs; hence, the risk of bias in estimates of effect cannot be excluded.

“Targeting a more stringent remission and implementing more frequent visits provide further potential for favorable outcomes of a treat‐to‐target strategy,” they concluded.

The study was supported by legacy funds provided to the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Three authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Corrona, Genentech, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer, and other companies.

SOURCE: Norvang V et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41232.

Implementing a more stringent treat‐to‐target strategy could provide better outcomes for patients with early RA, according to a recent comparative study.

The findings confirm the feasibility of adopting a treat‐to‐target approach to ensure optimal outcomes are achieved for patients with early-stage disease.

“The objective of the present study was to compare achievement of remission during 2 years of follow-up in two early RA cohorts implementing different treat‐to‐target strategies,” wrote Vibeke Norvang, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and colleagues. The findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis of data from the randomized ARCTIC trial and the Norwegian Very Early Arthritis Clinic (NOR-VEAC) observational study. The combined cohort included a total of 429 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive early RA patients, 189 and 330 from each study, respectively.

The American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Boolean remission criteria differed between the two cohorts, with more stringent criteria in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC. Remission was defined as scores of less than 1.6 and 2.6 on the Disease Activity Scores in 44 joints and 28 joints, respectively.

At 12- and 24-month follow-up, the researchers found that the odds of achieving remission were greater in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC (odds ratios, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.20 vs. OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.05-3.16).

“We found that more than half of patients in each cohort had reached the study-specific remission targets at 6 months, and this increased to more than 60% in each cohort at 12 and 24 months,” they reported.

With respect to drug therapy, all study patients started with methotrexate monotherapy at a mean dose of 16.0 mg and 15.5 mg in ARCTIC and NOR-VEAC, respectively. In addition, similar rates of escalation to a biologic DMARD were observed in both studies (25.6% vs. 25.4%) at 24 months.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was comparing outcomes in two cohorts with different study designs; hence, the risk of bias in estimates of effect cannot be excluded.

“Targeting a more stringent remission and implementing more frequent visits provide further potential for favorable outcomes of a treat‐to‐target strategy,” they concluded.

The study was supported by legacy funds provided to the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Three authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Corrona, Genentech, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer, and other companies.

SOURCE: Norvang V et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41232.

Implementing a more stringent treat‐to‐target strategy could provide better outcomes for patients with early RA, according to a recent comparative study.

The findings confirm the feasibility of adopting a treat‐to‐target approach to ensure optimal outcomes are achieved for patients with early-stage disease.

“The objective of the present study was to compare achievement of remission during 2 years of follow-up in two early RA cohorts implementing different treat‐to‐target strategies,” wrote Vibeke Norvang, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and colleagues. The findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis of data from the randomized ARCTIC trial and the Norwegian Very Early Arthritis Clinic (NOR-VEAC) observational study. The combined cohort included a total of 429 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive early RA patients, 189 and 330 from each study, respectively.

The American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Boolean remission criteria differed between the two cohorts, with more stringent criteria in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC. Remission was defined as scores of less than 1.6 and 2.6 on the Disease Activity Scores in 44 joints and 28 joints, respectively.

At 12- and 24-month follow-up, the researchers found that the odds of achieving remission were greater in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC (odds ratios, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.20 vs. OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.05-3.16).

“We found that more than half of patients in each cohort had reached the study-specific remission targets at 6 months, and this increased to more than 60% in each cohort at 12 and 24 months,” they reported.

With respect to drug therapy, all study patients started with methotrexate monotherapy at a mean dose of 16.0 mg and 15.5 mg in ARCTIC and NOR-VEAC, respectively. In addition, similar rates of escalation to a biologic DMARD were observed in both studies (25.6% vs. 25.4%) at 24 months.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was comparing outcomes in two cohorts with different study designs; hence, the risk of bias in estimates of effect cannot be excluded.

“Targeting a more stringent remission and implementing more frequent visits provide further potential for favorable outcomes of a treat‐to‐target strategy,” they concluded.

The study was supported by legacy funds provided to the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Three authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Corrona, Genentech, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer, and other companies.

SOURCE: Norvang V et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41232.

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

[email protected]

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

[email protected]

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

[email protected]