Rheumatology News

Long-term adherence to a plant-based diet was not tied to a greater risk of hip fracture and some plant-based regimens may actually reduce the risk, a large cohort study of postmenopausal women in the United States suggested.

Not all plant-centered regimens are healthful, however, and this study factored dietary quality into risk.

Writing in JAMA Network Open, the study authors compared the lowest to highest quintiles of Plant-Based Diet Index scores. They found the most recent intake of a healthy plant-based diet (hPDI) to be associated with a somewhat lower (21%) risk of fracture while the most recent intake of its unhealthy counterpart (uPDI) was linked to a somewhat higher (28%) risk.

“In addition, higher baseline scores in the uPDI were associated with higher risk of hip fracture,” wrote the researchers, led by Mercedes Sotos Prieto, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health at the Autonomous University of Madrid.

Plant-based diets, characterized by higher consumption of plant foods and lower or no intake of animal foods, have raised concerns about their potential harm to bone health. In a recent meta-analysis, vegetarians, but particularly vegans with no consumption of any animal food, had a higher fracture risk and lower bone mineral density compared with omnivores.

Another study found that compared with meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians had a higher risk of hip fractures. These analyses, however, did not assess the quality of the plant-based diets.

Courtesy Dr. Sotos Prieto

“We hypothesized that the differences in the quality of the plant-based diets — whole grains, fruits, and vegetables vs refined carbohydrates or snacks, which are both plant-based but very different, would be important in the association for the risk of hip fracture,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said in an interview.
 

Study details

Her study drew on data from 70,285 postmenopausal White women who were in the US Nurses’ Health Study from 1984 through 2014; data were analyzed from Jan. 1 to July 31, 2023.

The mean age of the nurses was 54.92 years, and 2038 cases of hip fracture were reported during the study over as long as 30 years of follow-up.

Healthy plant foods included whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, vegetable oils, and tea or coffee and received positive scores, whereas less healthy plant foods such as fruit juices, sweetened beverages, refined grains, potatoes, sweets, or desserts and animal foods received reversed scores. Dietary and lifestyle information was collected by self-reported questionnaires.

Individuals with higher hPDI scores were leaner, more physically active, less likely to be smokers, and more likely to use vitamin and calcium supplements. Not surprisingly, they also had higher intakes of dietary calcium and healthy plant foods and had lower intake of less healthy plant foods. “It’s plausible that reverse causation may account for the risk associations, as individuals with underlying health conditions that predisposed them to higher fracture risk may have changed their diet,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “In addition, baseline diet may reflect diet early on, which could be an important predictor of bone mineral density when there was more active bone turnover.”

Lack of information precluded adjustment for the use of anti-osteoporotic medication.

Neither the hPDI, with a hazard ratio (HR) for highest vs lowest quintile of 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.14) nor the uPDI, with an HR for highest vs lowest quintile of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.87-1.20) for diet adherence over the long term was associated with hip fracture risk.

For recent dietary intake in the highest vs lowest quintiles, however, the hPDI was associated with a 21% lower risk of hip fracture: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.92; P = .02 for trend). In contrast, the uPDI was associated with a 28% higher risk: HR, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09-1.51; P = .008 for trend).

Future studies in other populations are needed to confirm the results and enhance their generalizability, Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “Investigating the temporal dynamics of dietary patterns and their effects by examining how recent dietary changes may impact health outcomes over different timeframes is important.” In the meantime, people wishing to follow a plant-based diet should make sure it features high-quality foods.

This work was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, State Secretary of Research, Development and Innovation of Spain, and the European Research Funds and European Social Fund, the Agencia Estatal de Investigación, the National Institutes of Health, and a Ramón y Cajal contract from the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities. A coauthor reported a patent pending. No other disclosures were reported.

Long-term adherence to a plant-based diet was not tied to a greater risk of hip fracture and some plant-based regimens may actually reduce the risk, a large cohort study of postmenopausal women in the United States suggested.

Not all plant-centered regimens are healthful, however, and this study factored dietary quality into risk.

Writing in JAMA Network Open, the study authors compared the lowest to highest quintiles of Plant-Based Diet Index scores. They found the most recent intake of a healthy plant-based diet (hPDI) to be associated with a somewhat lower (21%) risk of fracture while the most recent intake of its unhealthy counterpart (uPDI) was linked to a somewhat higher (28%) risk.

“In addition, higher baseline scores in the uPDI were associated with higher risk of hip fracture,” wrote the researchers, led by Mercedes Sotos Prieto, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health at the Autonomous University of Madrid.

Plant-based diets, characterized by higher consumption of plant foods and lower or no intake of animal foods, have raised concerns about their potential harm to bone health. In a recent meta-analysis, vegetarians, but particularly vegans with no consumption of any animal food, had a higher fracture risk and lower bone mineral density compared with omnivores.

Another study found that compared with meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians had a higher risk of hip fractures. These analyses, however, did not assess the quality of the plant-based diets.

Courtesy Dr. Sotos Prieto

“We hypothesized that the differences in the quality of the plant-based diets — whole grains, fruits, and vegetables vs refined carbohydrates or snacks, which are both plant-based but very different, would be important in the association for the risk of hip fracture,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said in an interview.
 

Study details

Her study drew on data from 70,285 postmenopausal White women who were in the US Nurses’ Health Study from 1984 through 2014; data were analyzed from Jan. 1 to July 31, 2023.

The mean age of the nurses was 54.92 years, and 2038 cases of hip fracture were reported during the study over as long as 30 years of follow-up.

Healthy plant foods included whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, vegetable oils, and tea or coffee and received positive scores, whereas less healthy plant foods such as fruit juices, sweetened beverages, refined grains, potatoes, sweets, or desserts and animal foods received reversed scores. Dietary and lifestyle information was collected by self-reported questionnaires.

Individuals with higher hPDI scores were leaner, more physically active, less likely to be smokers, and more likely to use vitamin and calcium supplements. Not surprisingly, they also had higher intakes of dietary calcium and healthy plant foods and had lower intake of less healthy plant foods. “It’s plausible that reverse causation may account for the risk associations, as individuals with underlying health conditions that predisposed them to higher fracture risk may have changed their diet,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “In addition, baseline diet may reflect diet early on, which could be an important predictor of bone mineral density when there was more active bone turnover.”

Lack of information precluded adjustment for the use of anti-osteoporotic medication.

Neither the hPDI, with a hazard ratio (HR) for highest vs lowest quintile of 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.14) nor the uPDI, with an HR for highest vs lowest quintile of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.87-1.20) for diet adherence over the long term was associated with hip fracture risk.

For recent dietary intake in the highest vs lowest quintiles, however, the hPDI was associated with a 21% lower risk of hip fracture: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.92; P = .02 for trend). In contrast, the uPDI was associated with a 28% higher risk: HR, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09-1.51; P = .008 for trend).

Future studies in other populations are needed to confirm the results and enhance their generalizability, Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “Investigating the temporal dynamics of dietary patterns and their effects by examining how recent dietary changes may impact health outcomes over different timeframes is important.” In the meantime, people wishing to follow a plant-based diet should make sure it features high-quality foods.

This work was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, State Secretary of Research, Development and Innovation of Spain, and the European Research Funds and European Social Fund, the Agencia Estatal de Investigación, the National Institutes of Health, and a Ramón y Cajal contract from the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities. A coauthor reported a patent pending. No other disclosures were reported.

Long-term adherence to a plant-based diet was not tied to a greater risk of hip fracture and some plant-based regimens may actually reduce the risk, a large cohort study of postmenopausal women in the United States suggested.

Not all plant-centered regimens are healthful, however, and this study factored dietary quality into risk.

Writing in JAMA Network Open, the study authors compared the lowest to highest quintiles of Plant-Based Diet Index scores. They found the most recent intake of a healthy plant-based diet (hPDI) to be associated with a somewhat lower (21%) risk of fracture while the most recent intake of its unhealthy counterpart (uPDI) was linked to a somewhat higher (28%) risk.

“In addition, higher baseline scores in the uPDI were associated with higher risk of hip fracture,” wrote the researchers, led by Mercedes Sotos Prieto, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health at the Autonomous University of Madrid.

Plant-based diets, characterized by higher consumption of plant foods and lower or no intake of animal foods, have raised concerns about their potential harm to bone health. In a recent meta-analysis, vegetarians, but particularly vegans with no consumption of any animal food, had a higher fracture risk and lower bone mineral density compared with omnivores.

Another study found that compared with meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians had a higher risk of hip fractures. These analyses, however, did not assess the quality of the plant-based diets.

Courtesy Dr. Sotos Prieto

“We hypothesized that the differences in the quality of the plant-based diets — whole grains, fruits, and vegetables vs refined carbohydrates or snacks, which are both plant-based but very different, would be important in the association for the risk of hip fracture,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said in an interview.
 

Study details

Her study drew on data from 70,285 postmenopausal White women who were in the US Nurses’ Health Study from 1984 through 2014; data were analyzed from Jan. 1 to July 31, 2023.

The mean age of the nurses was 54.92 years, and 2038 cases of hip fracture were reported during the study over as long as 30 years of follow-up.

Healthy plant foods included whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, vegetable oils, and tea or coffee and received positive scores, whereas less healthy plant foods such as fruit juices, sweetened beverages, refined grains, potatoes, sweets, or desserts and animal foods received reversed scores. Dietary and lifestyle information was collected by self-reported questionnaires.

Individuals with higher hPDI scores were leaner, more physically active, less likely to be smokers, and more likely to use vitamin and calcium supplements. Not surprisingly, they also had higher intakes of dietary calcium and healthy plant foods and had lower intake of less healthy plant foods. “It’s plausible that reverse causation may account for the risk associations, as individuals with underlying health conditions that predisposed them to higher fracture risk may have changed their diet,” Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “In addition, baseline diet may reflect diet early on, which could be an important predictor of bone mineral density when there was more active bone turnover.”

Lack of information precluded adjustment for the use of anti-osteoporotic medication.

Neither the hPDI, with a hazard ratio (HR) for highest vs lowest quintile of 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.14) nor the uPDI, with an HR for highest vs lowest quintile of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.87-1.20) for diet adherence over the long term was associated with hip fracture risk.

For recent dietary intake in the highest vs lowest quintiles, however, the hPDI was associated with a 21% lower risk of hip fracture: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.92; P = .02 for trend). In contrast, the uPDI was associated with a 28% higher risk: HR, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09-1.51; P = .008 for trend).

Future studies in other populations are needed to confirm the results and enhance their generalizability, Dr. Sotos Prieto said. “Investigating the temporal dynamics of dietary patterns and their effects by examining how recent dietary changes may impact health outcomes over different timeframes is important.” In the meantime, people wishing to follow a plant-based diet should make sure it features high-quality foods.

This work was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, State Secretary of Research, Development and Innovation of Spain, and the European Research Funds and European Social Fund, the Agencia Estatal de Investigación, the National Institutes of Health, and a Ramón y Cajal contract from the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities. A coauthor reported a patent pending. No other disclosures were reported.

People with gout are 58% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new analysis. This increased risk was observed across 12 different cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, arrhythmias, and valve diseases.

“These findings suggest that the organ damage associated with gout is likely to be much broader than originally thought,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, senior author of the research and cardiovascular epidemiologist at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, said in an email. This could be useful for future research on underlying biological mechanisms driving CVD risk in gout, she added.

While previous research has tied gout to increased cardiovascular risk, these studies “largely focused on coronary heart disease, stroke, and thromboembolic outcomes,” she explained, and have been smaller in size.

This new study included more than 862,000 individuals, which permitted researchers to investigate rarer CVD outcomes such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

For the study, researchers used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database that contains anonymized health data for about 22 million individuals. Using these data, they identified more than 152,600 individuals with gout. Patients included in the analysis were diagnosed between 2000 and 2017, younger than 80 years at diagnosis, and free of CVD for at least 12 months after their gout diagnosis.

Patients with gout were compared with nearly 710,000 controls, matched on demographic factors such as age, sex, and geographic region.

Researchers then investigated the incidence of 12 CVDs, including atherosclerotic diseases, degenerative and thromboembolic diseases, and arrythmias, between the two groups from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2019.

The findings were published in the March 2024 issue of The Lancet Rheumatology. Overall, patients with gout were 58% more likely to develop any CVD than their matched comparators without gout. There was a higher disease incidence among patients with gout for each of the 12 conditions. This association was more pronounced in women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88) than in men (HR, 1.49), and gout amplified the risk for CVD in younger individuals to a greater extent.

Individuals younger than 45 years with gout were more than twice as likely to develop CVD compared with similarly aged individuals without gout. For comparison, individuals aged 45-54 years with gout were 84% more likely to develop CVD, and individuals aged 55-64 years were 57% more likely to develop CVD than matched controls.

Conduction system disease had the highest incident risk (HR, 1.88), followed by heart failure and valve disease (HR, 1.85 for both).

Individuals with gout had higher rates of comorbidities than the controls, including hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Overall, CVD risk was slightly attenuated after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index but still significant: Patients with gout had a 31% higher risk for CVD than comparators.

This shows “that known CVD risk factors only explain part of the CVD risks seen in patients with gout,” Dr. Conrad said. Other factors such as inflammation and other disease activity factors could be at play, she explained, which would need to be explored in future research.

The study “shows the whole landscape” of CVD and gout, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

“Every possible cardiovascular disease that they could think of was something that gout patients had more of than the non-gout patients,” he added. “I think this is going to be a paper that gets cited a lot, at minimum when describing the background of risk when we look at gout patients.”

The study had some limitations, including that researchers were unable to account for how medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, colchicine, or allopurinol may have affected the association between gout and CVD.

“This is because analyses of nonrandomized treatment can be confounded by indication, wherein it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the treatment from underlying disease severity,” the authors wrote.

There was also a large amount of missing data on blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, and other health information relevant to cardiovascular risk, so sensitivity analyses adjusting for these factors “should be interpreted with caution,” they added.

Dr. Pillinger also noted that the rates of comorbidities in the gout study population were lower than what have been found in US study populations. For example, about 40% of patients with gout in the analysis had hypertension, while other studies have suggested higher rates of 60%-70%, he said. However, it’s not clear if these differences could have affected outcomes. He added that these limitations do not “in any way weaken [the authors’] conclusion.”

The findings call for better strategies to reduce CVD risk in patients with gout, Dr. Conrad noted.

“Further improvements could come from better recognition and intervention on CVD risk factors (eg, through lifestyle changes or drug therapies where they are indicated), as well as proactive screening for heart disease in patients with gout, which could allow early diagnosis and interventions to delay more severe outcomes,” she added.

This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders. Dr. Conrad was funded by a personal fellowship from the Research Foundation Flanders and a European Society of Cardiology research grant. She received royalties from Oxford University Innovation. Four of Dr. Conrad’s eight coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pillinger served as a consultant to Amgen, Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, and Scilex, and he holds an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with gout are 58% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new analysis. This increased risk was observed across 12 different cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, arrhythmias, and valve diseases.

“These findings suggest that the organ damage associated with gout is likely to be much broader than originally thought,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, senior author of the research and cardiovascular epidemiologist at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, said in an email. This could be useful for future research on underlying biological mechanisms driving CVD risk in gout, she added.

While previous research has tied gout to increased cardiovascular risk, these studies “largely focused on coronary heart disease, stroke, and thromboembolic outcomes,” she explained, and have been smaller in size.

This new study included more than 862,000 individuals, which permitted researchers to investigate rarer CVD outcomes such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

For the study, researchers used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database that contains anonymized health data for about 22 million individuals. Using these data, they identified more than 152,600 individuals with gout. Patients included in the analysis were diagnosed between 2000 and 2017, younger than 80 years at diagnosis, and free of CVD for at least 12 months after their gout diagnosis.

Patients with gout were compared with nearly 710,000 controls, matched on demographic factors such as age, sex, and geographic region.

Researchers then investigated the incidence of 12 CVDs, including atherosclerotic diseases, degenerative and thromboembolic diseases, and arrythmias, between the two groups from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2019.

The findings were published in the March 2024 issue of The Lancet Rheumatology. Overall, patients with gout were 58% more likely to develop any CVD than their matched comparators without gout. There was a higher disease incidence among patients with gout for each of the 12 conditions. This association was more pronounced in women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88) than in men (HR, 1.49), and gout amplified the risk for CVD in younger individuals to a greater extent.

Individuals younger than 45 years with gout were more than twice as likely to develop CVD compared with similarly aged individuals without gout. For comparison, individuals aged 45-54 years with gout were 84% more likely to develop CVD, and individuals aged 55-64 years were 57% more likely to develop CVD than matched controls.

Conduction system disease had the highest incident risk (HR, 1.88), followed by heart failure and valve disease (HR, 1.85 for both).

Individuals with gout had higher rates of comorbidities than the controls, including hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Overall, CVD risk was slightly attenuated after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index but still significant: Patients with gout had a 31% higher risk for CVD than comparators.

This shows “that known CVD risk factors only explain part of the CVD risks seen in patients with gout,” Dr. Conrad said. Other factors such as inflammation and other disease activity factors could be at play, she explained, which would need to be explored in future research.

The study “shows the whole landscape” of CVD and gout, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

“Every possible cardiovascular disease that they could think of was something that gout patients had more of than the non-gout patients,” he added. “I think this is going to be a paper that gets cited a lot, at minimum when describing the background of risk when we look at gout patients.”

The study had some limitations, including that researchers were unable to account for how medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, colchicine, or allopurinol may have affected the association between gout and CVD.

“This is because analyses of nonrandomized treatment can be confounded by indication, wherein it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the treatment from underlying disease severity,” the authors wrote.

There was also a large amount of missing data on blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, and other health information relevant to cardiovascular risk, so sensitivity analyses adjusting for these factors “should be interpreted with caution,” they added.

Dr. Pillinger also noted that the rates of comorbidities in the gout study population were lower than what have been found in US study populations. For example, about 40% of patients with gout in the analysis had hypertension, while other studies have suggested higher rates of 60%-70%, he said. However, it’s not clear if these differences could have affected outcomes. He added that these limitations do not “in any way weaken [the authors’] conclusion.”

The findings call for better strategies to reduce CVD risk in patients with gout, Dr. Conrad noted.

“Further improvements could come from better recognition and intervention on CVD risk factors (eg, through lifestyle changes or drug therapies where they are indicated), as well as proactive screening for heart disease in patients with gout, which could allow early diagnosis and interventions to delay more severe outcomes,” she added.

This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders. Dr. Conrad was funded by a personal fellowship from the Research Foundation Flanders and a European Society of Cardiology research grant. She received royalties from Oxford University Innovation. Four of Dr. Conrad’s eight coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pillinger served as a consultant to Amgen, Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, and Scilex, and he holds an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with gout are 58% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new analysis. This increased risk was observed across 12 different cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, arrhythmias, and valve diseases.

“These findings suggest that the organ damage associated with gout is likely to be much broader than originally thought,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, senior author of the research and cardiovascular epidemiologist at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, said in an email. This could be useful for future research on underlying biological mechanisms driving CVD risk in gout, she added.

While previous research has tied gout to increased cardiovascular risk, these studies “largely focused on coronary heart disease, stroke, and thromboembolic outcomes,” she explained, and have been smaller in size.

This new study included more than 862,000 individuals, which permitted researchers to investigate rarer CVD outcomes such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

For the study, researchers used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database that contains anonymized health data for about 22 million individuals. Using these data, they identified more than 152,600 individuals with gout. Patients included in the analysis were diagnosed between 2000 and 2017, younger than 80 years at diagnosis, and free of CVD for at least 12 months after their gout diagnosis.

Patients with gout were compared with nearly 710,000 controls, matched on demographic factors such as age, sex, and geographic region.

Researchers then investigated the incidence of 12 CVDs, including atherosclerotic diseases, degenerative and thromboembolic diseases, and arrythmias, between the two groups from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2019.

The findings were published in the March 2024 issue of The Lancet Rheumatology. Overall, patients with gout were 58% more likely to develop any CVD than their matched comparators without gout. There was a higher disease incidence among patients with gout for each of the 12 conditions. This association was more pronounced in women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88) than in men (HR, 1.49), and gout amplified the risk for CVD in younger individuals to a greater extent.

Individuals younger than 45 years with gout were more than twice as likely to develop CVD compared with similarly aged individuals without gout. For comparison, individuals aged 45-54 years with gout were 84% more likely to develop CVD, and individuals aged 55-64 years were 57% more likely to develop CVD than matched controls.

Conduction system disease had the highest incident risk (HR, 1.88), followed by heart failure and valve disease (HR, 1.85 for both).

Individuals with gout had higher rates of comorbidities than the controls, including hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Overall, CVD risk was slightly attenuated after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index but still significant: Patients with gout had a 31% higher risk for CVD than comparators.

This shows “that known CVD risk factors only explain part of the CVD risks seen in patients with gout,” Dr. Conrad said. Other factors such as inflammation and other disease activity factors could be at play, she explained, which would need to be explored in future research.

The study “shows the whole landscape” of CVD and gout, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

“Every possible cardiovascular disease that they could think of was something that gout patients had more of than the non-gout patients,” he added. “I think this is going to be a paper that gets cited a lot, at minimum when describing the background of risk when we look at gout patients.”

The study had some limitations, including that researchers were unable to account for how medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, colchicine, or allopurinol may have affected the association between gout and CVD.

“This is because analyses of nonrandomized treatment can be confounded by indication, wherein it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the treatment from underlying disease severity,” the authors wrote.

There was also a large amount of missing data on blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, and other health information relevant to cardiovascular risk, so sensitivity analyses adjusting for these factors “should be interpreted with caution,” they added.

Dr. Pillinger also noted that the rates of comorbidities in the gout study population were lower than what have been found in US study populations. For example, about 40% of patients with gout in the analysis had hypertension, while other studies have suggested higher rates of 60%-70%, he said. However, it’s not clear if these differences could have affected outcomes. He added that these limitations do not “in any way weaken [the authors’] conclusion.”

The findings call for better strategies to reduce CVD risk in patients with gout, Dr. Conrad noted.

“Further improvements could come from better recognition and intervention on CVD risk factors (eg, through lifestyle changes or drug therapies where they are indicated), as well as proactive screening for heart disease in patients with gout, which could allow early diagnosis and interventions to delay more severe outcomes,” she added.

This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders. Dr. Conrad was funded by a personal fellowship from the Research Foundation Flanders and a European Society of Cardiology research grant. She received royalties from Oxford University Innovation. Four of Dr. Conrad’s eight coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pillinger served as a consultant to Amgen, Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, and Scilex, and he holds an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Imran Ali, MD, is not due for recertification in internal medicine for a few more years, but he already plans to forego the traditional 1-day exam and opt instead for a newer one, and what he hopes will prove less stressful approach to maintaining his credentials: The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

Dr. Ali, assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, is far from alone. Since the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) launched the new method in 2022, approximately 80% of internists have chosen the LKA to maintain their board certification over the 10-year Maintenance of Certification (MOC) exam coupled with continuing education requirements.

“You have to keep learning. I think the LKA is good in that regard, as long as the questions are relevantly updated,” said Dr. Ali, who was first board-certified in 2018 and obtained his geriatrics certification in 2020.

Many other internists contend the MOC is too time-consuming and expensive and have taken action.

Some specialists, including a group of oncologists, argue the exam contains too much information that has become irrelevant to clinical practice. Members of the American College of Cardiology have even left ABIM over the certification process, as this news organization previously reported. After receiving criticism, the ABIM introduced longitudinal assessment as a less onerous means to maintain certification — although the group denies it succumbed to negative feedback.

One and Done, or More Flexibility?

Both the traditional 10-year exam and the LKA have their advantages and disadvantages, according to Helen Chen, MD, the chair of the Geriatric Medicine Board Exam–Writing Committee at ABIM.

The LKA is arguably easier to access and available for most internal medicine disciplines. It requires no preparation for studying, and internists can complete exam questions on their phone, computer, or tablet.

Participants receive 30 questions per quarter for 5 years. Feedback is immediate and includes links to references for further learning. Once the process is completed and a physician meets the performance standard, the next 5-year cycle begins.

Still, some physicians still prefer the traditional 10-year, long-form exam. Studying for the test can be intense and take months. Physicians also must travel to an exam center on a designated date. However, once the test is over, the certification test does not roll around for another decade.

“It’s really about choice. Some doctors want to sit down and do it all at once and get it over with; others prefer to do a few questions at a time and never feel rushed,” said Dr. Chen, who is triple-boarded in geriatrics, internal medicine, and hospice and palliative medicine.

In 2022, Dr. Chen opted to begin the LKA cycle; a cross-country move and new job would not have allowed her enough time to prepare for the long-form exam, she said.

The new exam challenged her knowledge in smaller bites, provided immediate feedback, and allowed her to satisfy her curiosity through additional reading, she said, even if some questions were not relevant to her clinical practice.

The LKA is not yet as specialized, and ABIM is working to refine questions to be more relevant for some subspecialties.

Questions for both the LKA and long-form exam are developed from physician input, according to Dr. Chen. They are regularly assessed for relevance, accuracy, and changes to practice guidelines.

She acknowledged that questions can sometimes become outdated in a relatively short time, particularly for those taking the 10-year exam. But feedback from physicians helps committees analyze the relevancy of questions and how intensely an area should be tested. Committee members will even throw out questions if the literature changes significantly.

An Unnecessary Exercise

As criticism has mounted over the MOC, physicians have questioned whether recertification is necessary.

According to a survey of 1700 members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), most (64%) backed initial ABIM certification, but three quarters said the recertification process did not benefit their knowledge of clinical practice. More than 80% reported that Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits should suffice for ongoing learning, without having to be supplemented by the MOC exam. ASCO is considering alternative pathways to the current process based on their member feedback and plans to release a proposal to members in the first half of 2024.

Meanwhile, some cardiologists have called the MOC process “an onerous and unnecessary addition to continuing medical education requirements they already must meet at the state and hospital levels.”

The ABIM responded in part in a recent JAMA Viewpoint written by several members of the ABIM board of directors. They said board-certified physicians save the health system about $5 billion annually, compared with those who are not.

“Patients who are cared for by physicians who demonstrate more medical knowledge through certification and MOC have a better prognosis for a host of important outcomes including lower mortality from cardiovascular disease, fewer emergency department visits, and fewer unplanned hospitalizations,” the group wrote.

Certification provides a significant benefit, according to Dr. Ali. Some of his patients do ask about his credentials. He said he also finds keeping up with the latest information essential. Ongoing learning shows patients he is committed to providing the best care, he said. “It benefits me, and I’ve benefited my patients. When they come in with questions, I can speak knowledgeably,” he said.

Maintaining board certification is also not unique to internal medicine physicians or subspecialists. Other physician specialties mandate more frequent exams, include both oral and written portions, or administer exams totally online. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) has a longitudinal option, similar to the LKA, as an alternative to their 1-day exam.

Margo Savoy, MD, MPH, senior vice president of education, inclusiveness, and physician well-being at AAFP, said physicians should make the best choice for them.

“The AAFP welcomes the opportunity for family physicians to have options for how to demonstrate their competence and strongly encourages a balanced approach that avoids undue administrative burdens and fosters a culture of physician well-being and high-quality care,” Dr. Savoy said.

The ABIM has also been criticized for the fee structure for MOC, which some physicians consider excessive: $220 per year for the first certification and $120 for each additional certification. Physicians choosing to take the 10-year exam are charged an additional $700 testing center fee. Those charges do not include the cost of attending CME-related activities. One analysis estimated the cost of maintaining certification could reach into the tens of thousands of dollars, primarily from the time physicians must spend preparing for the long-form exam.

Dr. Chen pushed back on the contention that the ABIM is making a huge profit off of the 10-year exam. She called MOC fees reasonable when amortized over a 10-year cycle and noted the costs for longitudinal assessment are included in those charges.

Meanwhile, she encouraged physicians who were on the fence about maintaining board certification at all to consider both the benefit to their practice and to their patients, especially since the LKA has already demonstrated such popularity.

“There’s nothing like continuous learning to keep you humble,” Dr. Chen said. “You just don’t know everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Imran Ali, MD, is not due for recertification in internal medicine for a few more years, but he already plans to forego the traditional 1-day exam and opt instead for a newer one, and what he hopes will prove less stressful approach to maintaining his credentials: The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

Dr. Ali, assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, is far from alone. Since the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) launched the new method in 2022, approximately 80% of internists have chosen the LKA to maintain their board certification over the 10-year Maintenance of Certification (MOC) exam coupled with continuing education requirements.

“You have to keep learning. I think the LKA is good in that regard, as long as the questions are relevantly updated,” said Dr. Ali, who was first board-certified in 2018 and obtained his geriatrics certification in 2020.

Many other internists contend the MOC is too time-consuming and expensive and have taken action.

Some specialists, including a group of oncologists, argue the exam contains too much information that has become irrelevant to clinical practice. Members of the American College of Cardiology have even left ABIM over the certification process, as this news organization previously reported. After receiving criticism, the ABIM introduced longitudinal assessment as a less onerous means to maintain certification — although the group denies it succumbed to negative feedback.

One and Done, or More Flexibility?

Both the traditional 10-year exam and the LKA have their advantages and disadvantages, according to Helen Chen, MD, the chair of the Geriatric Medicine Board Exam–Writing Committee at ABIM.

The LKA is arguably easier to access and available for most internal medicine disciplines. It requires no preparation for studying, and internists can complete exam questions on their phone, computer, or tablet.

Participants receive 30 questions per quarter for 5 years. Feedback is immediate and includes links to references for further learning. Once the process is completed and a physician meets the performance standard, the next 5-year cycle begins.

Still, some physicians still prefer the traditional 10-year, long-form exam. Studying for the test can be intense and take months. Physicians also must travel to an exam center on a designated date. However, once the test is over, the certification test does not roll around for another decade.

“It’s really about choice. Some doctors want to sit down and do it all at once and get it over with; others prefer to do a few questions at a time and never feel rushed,” said Dr. Chen, who is triple-boarded in geriatrics, internal medicine, and hospice and palliative medicine.

In 2022, Dr. Chen opted to begin the LKA cycle; a cross-country move and new job would not have allowed her enough time to prepare for the long-form exam, she said.

The new exam challenged her knowledge in smaller bites, provided immediate feedback, and allowed her to satisfy her curiosity through additional reading, she said, even if some questions were not relevant to her clinical practice.

The LKA is not yet as specialized, and ABIM is working to refine questions to be more relevant for some subspecialties.

Questions for both the LKA and long-form exam are developed from physician input, according to Dr. Chen. They are regularly assessed for relevance, accuracy, and changes to practice guidelines.

She acknowledged that questions can sometimes become outdated in a relatively short time, particularly for those taking the 10-year exam. But feedback from physicians helps committees analyze the relevancy of questions and how intensely an area should be tested. Committee members will even throw out questions if the literature changes significantly.

An Unnecessary Exercise

As criticism has mounted over the MOC, physicians have questioned whether recertification is necessary.

According to a survey of 1700 members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), most (64%) backed initial ABIM certification, but three quarters said the recertification process did not benefit their knowledge of clinical practice. More than 80% reported that Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits should suffice for ongoing learning, without having to be supplemented by the MOC exam. ASCO is considering alternative pathways to the current process based on their member feedback and plans to release a proposal to members in the first half of 2024.

Meanwhile, some cardiologists have called the MOC process “an onerous and unnecessary addition to continuing medical education requirements they already must meet at the state and hospital levels.”

The ABIM responded in part in a recent JAMA Viewpoint written by several members of the ABIM board of directors. They said board-certified physicians save the health system about $5 billion annually, compared with those who are not.

“Patients who are cared for by physicians who demonstrate more medical knowledge through certification and MOC have a better prognosis for a host of important outcomes including lower mortality from cardiovascular disease, fewer emergency department visits, and fewer unplanned hospitalizations,” the group wrote.

Certification provides a significant benefit, according to Dr. Ali. Some of his patients do ask about his credentials. He said he also finds keeping up with the latest information essential. Ongoing learning shows patients he is committed to providing the best care, he said. “It benefits me, and I’ve benefited my patients. When they come in with questions, I can speak knowledgeably,” he said.

Maintaining board certification is also not unique to internal medicine physicians or subspecialists. Other physician specialties mandate more frequent exams, include both oral and written portions, or administer exams totally online. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) has a longitudinal option, similar to the LKA, as an alternative to their 1-day exam.

Margo Savoy, MD, MPH, senior vice president of education, inclusiveness, and physician well-being at AAFP, said physicians should make the best choice for them.

“The AAFP welcomes the opportunity for family physicians to have options for how to demonstrate their competence and strongly encourages a balanced approach that avoids undue administrative burdens and fosters a culture of physician well-being and high-quality care,” Dr. Savoy said.

The ABIM has also been criticized for the fee structure for MOC, which some physicians consider excessive: $220 per year for the first certification and $120 for each additional certification. Physicians choosing to take the 10-year exam are charged an additional $700 testing center fee. Those charges do not include the cost of attending CME-related activities. One analysis estimated the cost of maintaining certification could reach into the tens of thousands of dollars, primarily from the time physicians must spend preparing for the long-form exam.

Dr. Chen pushed back on the contention that the ABIM is making a huge profit off of the 10-year exam. She called MOC fees reasonable when amortized over a 10-year cycle and noted the costs for longitudinal assessment are included in those charges.

Meanwhile, she encouraged physicians who were on the fence about maintaining board certification at all to consider both the benefit to their practice and to their patients, especially since the LKA has already demonstrated such popularity.

“There’s nothing like continuous learning to keep you humble,” Dr. Chen said. “You just don’t know everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Imran Ali, MD, is not due for recertification in internal medicine for a few more years, but he already plans to forego the traditional 1-day exam and opt instead for a newer one, and what he hopes will prove less stressful approach to maintaining his credentials: The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

Dr. Ali, assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, is far from alone. Since the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) launched the new method in 2022, approximately 80% of internists have chosen the LKA to maintain their board certification over the 10-year Maintenance of Certification (MOC) exam coupled with continuing education requirements.

“You have to keep learning. I think the LKA is good in that regard, as long as the questions are relevantly updated,” said Dr. Ali, who was first board-certified in 2018 and obtained his geriatrics certification in 2020.

Many other internists contend the MOC is too time-consuming and expensive and have taken action.

Some specialists, including a group of oncologists, argue the exam contains too much information that has become irrelevant to clinical practice. Members of the American College of Cardiology have even left ABIM over the certification process, as this news organization previously reported. After receiving criticism, the ABIM introduced longitudinal assessment as a less onerous means to maintain certification — although the group denies it succumbed to negative feedback.

One and Done, or More Flexibility?

Both the traditional 10-year exam and the LKA have their advantages and disadvantages, according to Helen Chen, MD, the chair of the Geriatric Medicine Board Exam–Writing Committee at ABIM.

The LKA is arguably easier to access and available for most internal medicine disciplines. It requires no preparation for studying, and internists can complete exam questions on their phone, computer, or tablet.

Participants receive 30 questions per quarter for 5 years. Feedback is immediate and includes links to references for further learning. Once the process is completed and a physician meets the performance standard, the next 5-year cycle begins.

Still, some physicians still prefer the traditional 10-year, long-form exam. Studying for the test can be intense and take months. Physicians also must travel to an exam center on a designated date. However, once the test is over, the certification test does not roll around for another decade.

“It’s really about choice. Some doctors want to sit down and do it all at once and get it over with; others prefer to do a few questions at a time and never feel rushed,” said Dr. Chen, who is triple-boarded in geriatrics, internal medicine, and hospice and palliative medicine.

In 2022, Dr. Chen opted to begin the LKA cycle; a cross-country move and new job would not have allowed her enough time to prepare for the long-form exam, she said.

The new exam challenged her knowledge in smaller bites, provided immediate feedback, and allowed her to satisfy her curiosity through additional reading, she said, even if some questions were not relevant to her clinical practice.

The LKA is not yet as specialized, and ABIM is working to refine questions to be more relevant for some subspecialties.

Questions for both the LKA and long-form exam are developed from physician input, according to Dr. Chen. They are regularly assessed for relevance, accuracy, and changes to practice guidelines.

She acknowledged that questions can sometimes become outdated in a relatively short time, particularly for those taking the 10-year exam. But feedback from physicians helps committees analyze the relevancy of questions and how intensely an area should be tested. Committee members will even throw out questions if the literature changes significantly.

An Unnecessary Exercise

As criticism has mounted over the MOC, physicians have questioned whether recertification is necessary.

According to a survey of 1700 members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), most (64%) backed initial ABIM certification, but three quarters said the recertification process did not benefit their knowledge of clinical practice. More than 80% reported that Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits should suffice for ongoing learning, without having to be supplemented by the MOC exam. ASCO is considering alternative pathways to the current process based on their member feedback and plans to release a proposal to members in the first half of 2024.

Meanwhile, some cardiologists have called the MOC process “an onerous and unnecessary addition to continuing medical education requirements they already must meet at the state and hospital levels.”

The ABIM responded in part in a recent JAMA Viewpoint written by several members of the ABIM board of directors. They said board-certified physicians save the health system about $5 billion annually, compared with those who are not.

“Patients who are cared for by physicians who demonstrate more medical knowledge through certification and MOC have a better prognosis for a host of important outcomes including lower mortality from cardiovascular disease, fewer emergency department visits, and fewer unplanned hospitalizations,” the group wrote.

Certification provides a significant benefit, according to Dr. Ali. Some of his patients do ask about his credentials. He said he also finds keeping up with the latest information essential. Ongoing learning shows patients he is committed to providing the best care, he said. “It benefits me, and I’ve benefited my patients. When they come in with questions, I can speak knowledgeably,” he said.

Maintaining board certification is also not unique to internal medicine physicians or subspecialists. Other physician specialties mandate more frequent exams, include both oral and written portions, or administer exams totally online. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) has a longitudinal option, similar to the LKA, as an alternative to their 1-day exam.

Margo Savoy, MD, MPH, senior vice president of education, inclusiveness, and physician well-being at AAFP, said physicians should make the best choice for them.

“The AAFP welcomes the opportunity for family physicians to have options for how to demonstrate their competence and strongly encourages a balanced approach that avoids undue administrative burdens and fosters a culture of physician well-being and high-quality care,” Dr. Savoy said.

The ABIM has also been criticized for the fee structure for MOC, which some physicians consider excessive: $220 per year for the first certification and $120 for each additional certification. Physicians choosing to take the 10-year exam are charged an additional $700 testing center fee. Those charges do not include the cost of attending CME-related activities. One analysis estimated the cost of maintaining certification could reach into the tens of thousands of dollars, primarily from the time physicians must spend preparing for the long-form exam.

Dr. Chen pushed back on the contention that the ABIM is making a huge profit off of the 10-year exam. She called MOC fees reasonable when amortized over a 10-year cycle and noted the costs for longitudinal assessment are included in those charges.

Meanwhile, she encouraged physicians who were on the fence about maintaining board certification at all to consider both the benefit to their practice and to their patients, especially since the LKA has already demonstrated such popularity.

“There’s nothing like continuous learning to keep you humble,” Dr. Chen said. “You just don’t know everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose symptoms improved after they started taking nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs also demonstrated restored balance in their oral and gut flora, which could potentially serve as a marker of how they’ll respond to DMARDs, an observational study in the United Kingdom found.

Reporting in the journal Rheumatology, researchers led by Nathan Danckert, PhD, a genetic epidemiology researcher at King’s College London, and Maxim Freidin, PhD, of the Queen Mary University of London, London, England, evaluated stool and saliva samples of 144 people recently diagnosed with RA before and after they started DMARD therapy.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

“We identified a partial restoration of the microbiome to a more eubiotic state in RA patients at 6 weeks and 12 weeks of DMARD treatment in participants [who] responded well to DMARD therapy,” they wrote. “This was further supported by long-term (> 1 year) treated DMARD RA participants with similar community shifts.” Microbiomes, they said, are “a promising diagnostic tool” for directing DMARD therapy.
 

Study Goal Not Met

The goal of the study was to determine whether the microbiome of patients before they began treatment with DMARDs could predict their response to therapy. The patients were enrolled in the IMRABIOME study. Eligible patients had inflammatory arthritis symptoms for a year or less and met the clinical criteria for RA. Most patients were taking methotrexate (134 at baseline, 77 at 12 weeks), but study participants were also taking sulfasalazine (16 at baseline, 14 at 12 weeks) or hydroxychloroquine (58 at baseline, 45 at 12 weeks) either in combination or as a stand-alone treatment.

The study found a total of 26 different stool microbes that decreased in patients who had a minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) after starting DMARD therapy. At 6 weeks, the most significant declines were in Prevotella species. At 12 weeks, the greatest declines were in Streptococcus. 

The researchers also developed models that used gut and oral metagenomes to predict MCII in patients starting DMARD therapy. They used a previously published microbiome dataset as a validation cohort for the model, but they acknowledged their models “were not as strong” as three previously published models. “Our findings support the hypothesis of DMARD restoration of a eubiotic gut microbiome when patient and treatment align,” the authors wrote.

They noted they had anticipated finding baseline microbiome samples that would help predict treatment responses. While baseline evaluation didn’t differentiate between responders and nonresponders, they wrote that a longitudinal analysis demonstrated changing microbiota and a positive response to therapy, with declining levels of Prevotella and Streptococcus species most pronounced at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively.

“Microbiomes provide a promising diagnostic tool for guiding therapeutic decisions in the future,” the study authors wrote.
 

Commentary

In commenting on the study, Gregg J. Silverman, MD, professor of medicine and pathology at the New York University School of Medicine, New York City, said it “was carefully performed, technically it was actually quite impressive, and the scale of the study actually was quite suitable.”

NYU School of Medicine

However, the study fell short of achieving its primary goal of using the microbiome to predict treatment response, he said. “Basically, they could not find there was anything they could correlate with clinical response rates, although they did find that the presence or absence of certain bacteria at 6 weeks or 12 weeks into treatment correlated with a clinical response,” he said.

The multiplicity of DMARDs used by the study population was “one of the complicating factors” of the study, Dr. Silverman said. “It would’ve been a much more easily interpreted study if it used just a single agent like methotrexate,” he said. “I think that’s problematic, but I do think this contributes to getting us a little further down the road of understanding how the microbiome can influence the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis response to treatment.”

One of the questions surrounding the microbiome changes is whether they occurred because of the effect of the therapy itself or because the disease activity subsides, Dr. Silverman said. “So, you’re not sure if it’s cause or effect. There’s evidence to suggest that either could be true.”

This study adds to a 2022 study that found a similar effect with methotrexate, Dr. Silverman said. “They considered a lot of variables, and they considered a lot of potential confounding effects,” he said. “So, their data were well-considered, and they will actually hold up over time and contribute to the next range of studies that will be performed, no doubt, in this area.”

It would be better if those future studies focused on just one DMARD drug and studied the recovered bacteria in animal models to gain a better understanding of how they correlate to pathogenesis, Dr. Silverman added.

The study received funding from Versus Arthritis. Dr. Danckert, Dr. Freidin, and coauthors, as well as Dr. Silverman, reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose symptoms improved after they started taking nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs also demonstrated restored balance in their oral and gut flora, which could potentially serve as a marker of how they’ll respond to DMARDs, an observational study in the United Kingdom found.

Reporting in the journal Rheumatology, researchers led by Nathan Danckert, PhD, a genetic epidemiology researcher at King’s College London, and Maxim Freidin, PhD, of the Queen Mary University of London, London, England, evaluated stool and saliva samples of 144 people recently diagnosed with RA before and after they started DMARD therapy.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

“We identified a partial restoration of the microbiome to a more eubiotic state in RA patients at 6 weeks and 12 weeks of DMARD treatment in participants [who] responded well to DMARD therapy,” they wrote. “This was further supported by long-term (> 1 year) treated DMARD RA participants with similar community shifts.” Microbiomes, they said, are “a promising diagnostic tool” for directing DMARD therapy.
 

Study Goal Not Met

The goal of the study was to determine whether the microbiome of patients before they began treatment with DMARDs could predict their response to therapy. The patients were enrolled in the IMRABIOME study. Eligible patients had inflammatory arthritis symptoms for a year or less and met the clinical criteria for RA. Most patients were taking methotrexate (134 at baseline, 77 at 12 weeks), but study participants were also taking sulfasalazine (16 at baseline, 14 at 12 weeks) or hydroxychloroquine (58 at baseline, 45 at 12 weeks) either in combination or as a stand-alone treatment.

The study found a total of 26 different stool microbes that decreased in patients who had a minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) after starting DMARD therapy. At 6 weeks, the most significant declines were in Prevotella species. At 12 weeks, the greatest declines were in Streptococcus. 

The researchers also developed models that used gut and oral metagenomes to predict MCII in patients starting DMARD therapy. They used a previously published microbiome dataset as a validation cohort for the model, but they acknowledged their models “were not as strong” as three previously published models. “Our findings support the hypothesis of DMARD restoration of a eubiotic gut microbiome when patient and treatment align,” the authors wrote.

They noted they had anticipated finding baseline microbiome samples that would help predict treatment responses. While baseline evaluation didn’t differentiate between responders and nonresponders, they wrote that a longitudinal analysis demonstrated changing microbiota and a positive response to therapy, with declining levels of Prevotella and Streptococcus species most pronounced at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively.

“Microbiomes provide a promising diagnostic tool for guiding therapeutic decisions in the future,” the study authors wrote.
 

Commentary

In commenting on the study, Gregg J. Silverman, MD, professor of medicine and pathology at the New York University School of Medicine, New York City, said it “was carefully performed, technically it was actually quite impressive, and the scale of the study actually was quite suitable.”

NYU School of Medicine

However, the study fell short of achieving its primary goal of using the microbiome to predict treatment response, he said. “Basically, they could not find there was anything they could correlate with clinical response rates, although they did find that the presence or absence of certain bacteria at 6 weeks or 12 weeks into treatment correlated with a clinical response,” he said.

The multiplicity of DMARDs used by the study population was “one of the complicating factors” of the study, Dr. Silverman said. “It would’ve been a much more easily interpreted study if it used just a single agent like methotrexate,” he said. “I think that’s problematic, but I do think this contributes to getting us a little further down the road of understanding how the microbiome can influence the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis response to treatment.”

One of the questions surrounding the microbiome changes is whether they occurred because of the effect of the therapy itself or because the disease activity subsides, Dr. Silverman said. “So, you’re not sure if it’s cause or effect. There’s evidence to suggest that either could be true.”

This study adds to a 2022 study that found a similar effect with methotrexate, Dr. Silverman said. “They considered a lot of variables, and they considered a lot of potential confounding effects,” he said. “So, their data were well-considered, and they will actually hold up over time and contribute to the next range of studies that will be performed, no doubt, in this area.”

It would be better if those future studies focused on just one DMARD drug and studied the recovered bacteria in animal models to gain a better understanding of how they correlate to pathogenesis, Dr. Silverman added.

The study received funding from Versus Arthritis. Dr. Danckert, Dr. Freidin, and coauthors, as well as Dr. Silverman, reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose symptoms improved after they started taking nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs also demonstrated restored balance in their oral and gut flora, which could potentially serve as a marker of how they’ll respond to DMARDs, an observational study in the United Kingdom found.

Reporting in the journal Rheumatology, researchers led by Nathan Danckert, PhD, a genetic epidemiology researcher at King’s College London, and Maxim Freidin, PhD, of the Queen Mary University of London, London, England, evaluated stool and saliva samples of 144 people recently diagnosed with RA before and after they started DMARD therapy.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

“We identified a partial restoration of the microbiome to a more eubiotic state in RA patients at 6 weeks and 12 weeks of DMARD treatment in participants [who] responded well to DMARD therapy,” they wrote. “This was further supported by long-term (> 1 year) treated DMARD RA participants with similar community shifts.” Microbiomes, they said, are “a promising diagnostic tool” for directing DMARD therapy.
 

Study Goal Not Met

The goal of the study was to determine whether the microbiome of patients before they began treatment with DMARDs could predict their response to therapy. The patients were enrolled in the IMRABIOME study. Eligible patients had inflammatory arthritis symptoms for a year or less and met the clinical criteria for RA. Most patients were taking methotrexate (134 at baseline, 77 at 12 weeks), but study participants were also taking sulfasalazine (16 at baseline, 14 at 12 weeks) or hydroxychloroquine (58 at baseline, 45 at 12 weeks) either in combination or as a stand-alone treatment.

The study found a total of 26 different stool microbes that decreased in patients who had a minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) after starting DMARD therapy. At 6 weeks, the most significant declines were in Prevotella species. At 12 weeks, the greatest declines were in Streptococcus. 

The researchers also developed models that used gut and oral metagenomes to predict MCII in patients starting DMARD therapy. They used a previously published microbiome dataset as a validation cohort for the model, but they acknowledged their models “were not as strong” as three previously published models. “Our findings support the hypothesis of DMARD restoration of a eubiotic gut microbiome when patient and treatment align,” the authors wrote.

They noted they had anticipated finding baseline microbiome samples that would help predict treatment responses. While baseline evaluation didn’t differentiate between responders and nonresponders, they wrote that a longitudinal analysis demonstrated changing microbiota and a positive response to therapy, with declining levels of Prevotella and Streptococcus species most pronounced at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively.

“Microbiomes provide a promising diagnostic tool for guiding therapeutic decisions in the future,” the study authors wrote.
 

Commentary

In commenting on the study, Gregg J. Silverman, MD, professor of medicine and pathology at the New York University School of Medicine, New York City, said it “was carefully performed, technically it was actually quite impressive, and the scale of the study actually was quite suitable.”

NYU School of Medicine

However, the study fell short of achieving its primary goal of using the microbiome to predict treatment response, he said. “Basically, they could not find there was anything they could correlate with clinical response rates, although they did find that the presence or absence of certain bacteria at 6 weeks or 12 weeks into treatment correlated with a clinical response,” he said.

The multiplicity of DMARDs used by the study population was “one of the complicating factors” of the study, Dr. Silverman said. “It would’ve been a much more easily interpreted study if it used just a single agent like methotrexate,” he said. “I think that’s problematic, but I do think this contributes to getting us a little further down the road of understanding how the microbiome can influence the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis response to treatment.”

One of the questions surrounding the microbiome changes is whether they occurred because of the effect of the therapy itself or because the disease activity subsides, Dr. Silverman said. “So, you’re not sure if it’s cause or effect. There’s evidence to suggest that either could be true.”

This study adds to a 2022 study that found a similar effect with methotrexate, Dr. Silverman said. “They considered a lot of variables, and they considered a lot of potential confounding effects,” he said. “So, their data were well-considered, and they will actually hold up over time and contribute to the next range of studies that will be performed, no doubt, in this area.”

It would be better if those future studies focused on just one DMARD drug and studied the recovered bacteria in animal models to gain a better understanding of how they correlate to pathogenesis, Dr. Silverman added.

The study received funding from Versus Arthritis. Dr. Danckert, Dr. Freidin, and coauthors, as well as Dr. Silverman, reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable, high-concentration, citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar, adalimumab-ryvk (Simlandi).

This is the 10th adalimumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first biosimilar approval in the US market for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals.

“An interchangeable citrate-free, high-concentration biosimilar adalimumab has the potential to change the market dynamics in a rapidly evolving environment for biosimilars in the U.S.,” said Robert Wessman, chairman and CEO of Alvotech, in a company press release on February 23.

Adalimumab-ryvk was approved in the European Union in 2021 and in Australia and Canada in 2022. 

Adalimumab-ryvk is indicated for adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, plaque psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis. In pediatric patients, it is indicated for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children 2 years of age and older and Crohn’s disease in children 6 years of age and older.

Adalimumab-ryvk is the third Humira biosimilar overall granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists (depending on state law) to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. Adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim, and adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), manufactured by Pfizer, were previously granted interchangeability status; however, they both are interchangeable with the low-concentration formulation of Humira, which make up only an estimated 15% of Humira prescriptions, according to a report by Goodroot. 

Adalimumab-ryvk will be launched “imminently” in the United States, according to the press release, but no specific dates were provided. It is also not yet known how the biosimilar will be priced compared with Humira. Other adalimumab biosimilars have launched with discounts from 5% to 85% of Humira’s list price.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable, high-concentration, citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar, adalimumab-ryvk (Simlandi).

This is the 10th adalimumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first biosimilar approval in the US market for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals.

“An interchangeable citrate-free, high-concentration biosimilar adalimumab has the potential to change the market dynamics in a rapidly evolving environment for biosimilars in the U.S.,” said Robert Wessman, chairman and CEO of Alvotech, in a company press release on February 23.

Adalimumab-ryvk was approved in the European Union in 2021 and in Australia and Canada in 2022. 

Adalimumab-ryvk is indicated for adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, plaque psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis. In pediatric patients, it is indicated for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children 2 years of age and older and Crohn’s disease in children 6 years of age and older.

Adalimumab-ryvk is the third Humira biosimilar overall granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists (depending on state law) to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. Adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim, and adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), manufactured by Pfizer, were previously granted interchangeability status; however, they both are interchangeable with the low-concentration formulation of Humira, which make up only an estimated 15% of Humira prescriptions, according to a report by Goodroot. 

Adalimumab-ryvk will be launched “imminently” in the United States, according to the press release, but no specific dates were provided. It is also not yet known how the biosimilar will be priced compared with Humira. Other adalimumab biosimilars have launched with discounts from 5% to 85% of Humira’s list price.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable, high-concentration, citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar, adalimumab-ryvk (Simlandi).

This is the 10th adalimumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first biosimilar approval in the US market for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals.

“An interchangeable citrate-free, high-concentration biosimilar adalimumab has the potential to change the market dynamics in a rapidly evolving environment for biosimilars in the U.S.,” said Robert Wessman, chairman and CEO of Alvotech, in a company press release on February 23.

Adalimumab-ryvk was approved in the European Union in 2021 and in Australia and Canada in 2022. 

Adalimumab-ryvk is indicated for adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, plaque psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis. In pediatric patients, it is indicated for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children 2 years of age and older and Crohn’s disease in children 6 years of age and older.

Adalimumab-ryvk is the third Humira biosimilar overall granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists (depending on state law) to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. Adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim, and adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), manufactured by Pfizer, were previously granted interchangeability status; however, they both are interchangeable with the low-concentration formulation of Humira, which make up only an estimated 15% of Humira prescriptions, according to a report by Goodroot. 

Adalimumab-ryvk will be launched “imminently” in the United States, according to the press release, but no specific dates were provided. It is also not yet known how the biosimilar will be priced compared with Humira. Other adalimumab biosimilars have launched with discounts from 5% to 85% of Humira’s list price.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pooled data from 9225 adults with psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) showed no new safety signals with extended exposure to ixekizumab (Taltz).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers combined patient data from 25 randomized, controlled trials of the safety and effectiveness of at least one dose of ixekizumab in adults with PsO (n = 6892), PsA (n = 1401), and axSpA (n = 932).
• The study population included patients with a mean age of approximately 43-49 years; at least 49% were male and at least 74% were White across the three conditions.
• Patients’ median duration of ixekizumab exposure was 1.3 years for PsO, 1.4 years for PsA, and 2.7 years for axSpA, with data up to 6 years for PsO and up to 3 years for PsA and axSpA.
• The primary outcomes were exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 patient-years overall and at successive year intervals for treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and selected adverse events of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate per 100 person-years for any treatment-emergent adverse event was 32.5 for PsO, 50.3 for PsA, and 38.0 for axSpA; these did not increase with lengthier exposure.
• The incidence rates for serious adverse events for patients with PsO, PsA, or axSpA were 5.4, 6.0, and 4.8 per 100 person-years, respectively.
• A total of 45 deaths were reported across the studies, including 36 in patients with PsO, six with PsA, and three with axSpA.
• Infections were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events across all patient groups, reported in patients at rates of 62.5% with PsO, 52.4% with PsA, and 57.9% with axSpA; incidence of infections did not increase over time.

IN PRACTICE:

“These final, end-of-study program results surrounding the long-term use of [ixekizumab] in patients with PsO, PsA, and axSpA should serve as an important point of reference for physicians considering [ixekizumab],” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Atul Deodhar, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. The study was published online on February 12 in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the small sample sizes and short treatment durations in some studies, the primarily White study population, the inability to stratify risk, the lack of a long-term comparator, and potential survivor bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The studies in the review were supported by Eli Lilly. Lead author Dr. Deodhar disclosed an honorarium and serving on advisory boards at AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, as well as research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pooled data from 9225 adults with psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) showed no new safety signals with extended exposure to ixekizumab (Taltz).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers combined patient data from 25 randomized, controlled trials of the safety and effectiveness of at least one dose of ixekizumab in adults with PsO (n = 6892), PsA (n = 1401), and axSpA (n = 932).
• The study population included patients with a mean age of approximately 43-49 years; at least 49% were male and at least 74% were White across the three conditions.
• Patients’ median duration of ixekizumab exposure was 1.3 years for PsO, 1.4 years for PsA, and 2.7 years for axSpA, with data up to 6 years for PsO and up to 3 years for PsA and axSpA.
• The primary outcomes were exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 patient-years overall and at successive year intervals for treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and selected adverse events of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate per 100 person-years for any treatment-emergent adverse event was 32.5 for PsO, 50.3 for PsA, and 38.0 for axSpA; these did not increase with lengthier exposure.
• The incidence rates for serious adverse events for patients with PsO, PsA, or axSpA were 5.4, 6.0, and 4.8 per 100 person-years, respectively.
• A total of 45 deaths were reported across the studies, including 36 in patients with PsO, six with PsA, and three with axSpA.
• Infections were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events across all patient groups, reported in patients at rates of 62.5% with PsO, 52.4% with PsA, and 57.9% with axSpA; incidence of infections did not increase over time.

IN PRACTICE:

“These final, end-of-study program results surrounding the long-term use of [ixekizumab] in patients with PsO, PsA, and axSpA should serve as an important point of reference for physicians considering [ixekizumab],” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Atul Deodhar, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. The study was published online on February 12 in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the small sample sizes and short treatment durations in some studies, the primarily White study population, the inability to stratify risk, the lack of a long-term comparator, and potential survivor bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The studies in the review were supported by Eli Lilly. Lead author Dr. Deodhar disclosed an honorarium and serving on advisory boards at AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, as well as research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pooled data from 9225 adults with psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) showed no new safety signals with extended exposure to ixekizumab (Taltz).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers combined patient data from 25 randomized, controlled trials of the safety and effectiveness of at least one dose of ixekizumab in adults with PsO (n = 6892), PsA (n = 1401), and axSpA (n = 932).
• The study population included patients with a mean age of approximately 43-49 years; at least 49% were male and at least 74% were White across the three conditions.
• Patients’ median duration of ixekizumab exposure was 1.3 years for PsO, 1.4 years for PsA, and 2.7 years for axSpA, with data up to 6 years for PsO and up to 3 years for PsA and axSpA.
• The primary outcomes were exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 patient-years overall and at successive year intervals for treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and selected adverse events of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate per 100 person-years for any treatment-emergent adverse event was 32.5 for PsO, 50.3 for PsA, and 38.0 for axSpA; these did not increase with lengthier exposure.
• The incidence rates for serious adverse events for patients with PsO, PsA, or axSpA were 5.4, 6.0, and 4.8 per 100 person-years, respectively.
• A total of 45 deaths were reported across the studies, including 36 in patients with PsO, six with PsA, and three with axSpA.
• Infections were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events across all patient groups, reported in patients at rates of 62.5% with PsO, 52.4% with PsA, and 57.9% with axSpA; incidence of infections did not increase over time.

IN PRACTICE:

“These final, end-of-study program results surrounding the long-term use of [ixekizumab] in patients with PsO, PsA, and axSpA should serve as an important point of reference for physicians considering [ixekizumab],” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Atul Deodhar, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. The study was published online on February 12 in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the small sample sizes and short treatment durations in some studies, the primarily White study population, the inability to stratify risk, the lack of a long-term comparator, and potential survivor bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The studies in the review were supported by Eli Lilly. Lead author Dr. Deodhar disclosed an honorarium and serving on advisory boards at AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, as well as research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eosinopenia and low ratio between eosinophil count (EC) and neutrophil count (NC) are potential indicators of infection for patients with inflammatory disease who are treated with tocilizumab.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from 163 patients treated for an inflammatory disease (mostly rheumatoid arthritis) with tocilizumab at a single center between 2009 and 2020.
• The study population included 41 patients with unscheduled hospitalizations for suspected infections. Patients’ median age was 59 years, and 83% were female.
• The researchers assessed the association in tocilizumab-treated patients between infections and eosinopenia (defined as EC < 0.05 g/L) and a low ratio between EC and NC, defined as EC/NC × 1000 < 11.8.

TAKEAWAY:

• Infectious diseases were diagnosed in 20 of the hospitalized patients (49%); the most common diseases were pneumonia (30%), joint or bone infections (25%), and gastrointestinal tract infections (15%).
• The median absolute EC at hospital admission was significantly lower for patients with infections than for those without infections (0.06 g/L vs 0.20 g/L).
• The median EC/NC × 1000 ratios were significantly lower in infected patients vs noninfected patients (6.54 vs 48.50).
• No differences appeared between patients with and without infections in age, sex, type of inflammatory disease, and steroid treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“This original study suggests that all those easily available parameters should be used to maximize [sensitivity] in the screening of infection in patients undergoing treatment with IL-6 pathway antagonists,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Audrey Glatre, MD, of University Hospital Centre Reims, France. The study was published online in RMD Open on February 9.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective, observational design; relatively small study population; and use of data from a single center were potential limitations of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eosinopenia and low ratio between eosinophil count (EC) and neutrophil count (NC) are potential indicators of infection for patients with inflammatory disease who are treated with tocilizumab.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from 163 patients treated for an inflammatory disease (mostly rheumatoid arthritis) with tocilizumab at a single center between 2009 and 2020.
• The study population included 41 patients with unscheduled hospitalizations for suspected infections. Patients’ median age was 59 years, and 83% were female.
• The researchers assessed the association in tocilizumab-treated patients between infections and eosinopenia (defined as EC < 0.05 g/L) and a low ratio between EC and NC, defined as EC/NC × 1000 < 11.8.

TAKEAWAY:

• Infectious diseases were diagnosed in 20 of the hospitalized patients (49%); the most common diseases were pneumonia (30%), joint or bone infections (25%), and gastrointestinal tract infections (15%).
• The median absolute EC at hospital admission was significantly lower for patients with infections than for those without infections (0.06 g/L vs 0.20 g/L).
• The median EC/NC × 1000 ratios were significantly lower in infected patients vs noninfected patients (6.54 vs 48.50).
• No differences appeared between patients with and without infections in age, sex, type of inflammatory disease, and steroid treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“This original study suggests that all those easily available parameters should be used to maximize [sensitivity] in the screening of infection in patients undergoing treatment with IL-6 pathway antagonists,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Audrey Glatre, MD, of University Hospital Centre Reims, France. The study was published online in RMD Open on February 9.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective, observational design; relatively small study population; and use of data from a single center were potential limitations of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eosinopenia and low ratio between eosinophil count (EC) and neutrophil count (NC) are potential indicators of infection for patients with inflammatory disease who are treated with tocilizumab.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from 163 patients treated for an inflammatory disease (mostly rheumatoid arthritis) with tocilizumab at a single center between 2009 and 2020.
• The study population included 41 patients with unscheduled hospitalizations for suspected infections. Patients’ median age was 59 years, and 83% were female.
• The researchers assessed the association in tocilizumab-treated patients between infections and eosinopenia (defined as EC < 0.05 g/L) and a low ratio between EC and NC, defined as EC/NC × 1000 < 11.8.

TAKEAWAY:

• Infectious diseases were diagnosed in 20 of the hospitalized patients (49%); the most common diseases were pneumonia (30%), joint or bone infections (25%), and gastrointestinal tract infections (15%).
• The median absolute EC at hospital admission was significantly lower for patients with infections than for those without infections (0.06 g/L vs 0.20 g/L).
• The median EC/NC × 1000 ratios were significantly lower in infected patients vs noninfected patients (6.54 vs 48.50).
• No differences appeared between patients with and without infections in age, sex, type of inflammatory disease, and steroid treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“This original study suggests that all those easily available parameters should be used to maximize [sensitivity] in the screening of infection in patients undergoing treatment with IL-6 pathway antagonists,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Audrey Glatre, MD, of University Hospital Centre Reims, France. The study was published online in RMD Open on February 9.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective, observational design; relatively small study population; and use of data from a single center were potential limitations of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with psoriasis, the risk of mortality was strongly associated with hepatic injury, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric affective disorders, but was reduced among those who received systemic therapy with biologics, researchers from Canada report.

Those are key findings from a large retrospective registry study of patients with psoriasis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting approximately 3% of the western populations, bears a higher risk of mortality compared to healthy individuals, possibly by inducing systemic inflammation associated with numerous comorbidities, especially cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and others,” wrote corresponding author Robert Gniadecki, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues. “It has been argued that the use of systemic immunomodulatory agents quenches systemic inflammation and potentially improves patient survival. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited.”

To investigate the impact of comorbidities and systemic therapies on all-cause mortality in psoriasis, the researchers used the Alberta Health Services Data Repository of Reporting database from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2019, which represents a population base of 4.47 million individuals. They extracted data on 18,618 psoriasis cases and 55,854 controls, stratified cases according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a surrogate measure for comorbidity burden, and by the type of therapy received, and conducted statistical analyses including Cox proportional hazards regression to determine absolute hazard ratios representing relative effects of specific demographic and comorbidity factors on mortality within groups.

The median age in both cohorts was 48 years, and 51% were male. The researchers observed that mortality in the psoriasis cohort was significantly higher than in the controls (5.7% vs. 3.8%, respectively; P < .05), with a median age at the time of death of 72 vs. 74.4 years.

The CCI and comorbidities strongly predicted mortality, especially drug-induced liver injury (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78), bipolar disorder and suicidal ideation (HR, 1.24-1.58), and major cardiovascular diseases, which included myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and cerebrovascular disease (CVA) (HR, 1.2-1.4).

Among patients in the psoriasis cohort, survival of those treated with biologic agents was higher than in controls, even after matching for CCI (3.2% vs. 4.4%, respectively, P < .05). “These patients also exhibit reduced overall mortality compared to those treated with methotrexate or topical agents,” Dr. Gniadecki and colleagues wrote. “There was no difference in mortality between methotrexate patients and the topical therapy patients, but any of those treatment groups had superior survival compared to the no-treatment cohort.”

They added that despite better survival among patients treated with biologic agents, no significant improvements were detected in their comorbidity profiles. “Notably, the frequency of major cardiovascular disease (MI, CHF, CVA) was the same as in the controls, and overall, the frequency of diseases coded as cardiovascular was slightly increased,” they wrote.

The fact that some factors could not be measured, including the type and severity of psoriasis, response to treatment, smoking history, and alcohol intake, was a study limitation, they noted.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the analysis, said the study confirms prior work indicating that having psoriasis is a predictor of mortality. In addition, “there is a strong healthy user affect among patients who take and stay on biologics for psoriasis,” he told this news organization.

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

Among patients with psoriasis, the risk of mortality was strongly associated with hepatic injury, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric affective disorders, but was reduced among those who received systemic therapy with biologics, researchers from Canada report.

Those are key findings from a large retrospective registry study of patients with psoriasis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting approximately 3% of the western populations, bears a higher risk of mortality compared to healthy individuals, possibly by inducing systemic inflammation associated with numerous comorbidities, especially cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and others,” wrote corresponding author Robert Gniadecki, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues. “It has been argued that the use of systemic immunomodulatory agents quenches systemic inflammation and potentially improves patient survival. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited.”

To investigate the impact of comorbidities and systemic therapies on all-cause mortality in psoriasis, the researchers used the Alberta Health Services Data Repository of Reporting database from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2019, which represents a population base of 4.47 million individuals. They extracted data on 18,618 psoriasis cases and 55,854 controls, stratified cases according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a surrogate measure for comorbidity burden, and by the type of therapy received, and conducted statistical analyses including Cox proportional hazards regression to determine absolute hazard ratios representing relative effects of specific demographic and comorbidity factors on mortality within groups.

The median age in both cohorts was 48 years, and 51% were male. The researchers observed that mortality in the psoriasis cohort was significantly higher than in the controls (5.7% vs. 3.8%, respectively; P < .05), with a median age at the time of death of 72 vs. 74.4 years.

The CCI and comorbidities strongly predicted mortality, especially drug-induced liver injury (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78), bipolar disorder and suicidal ideation (HR, 1.24-1.58), and major cardiovascular diseases, which included myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and cerebrovascular disease (CVA) (HR, 1.2-1.4).

Among patients in the psoriasis cohort, survival of those treated with biologic agents was higher than in controls, even after matching for CCI (3.2% vs. 4.4%, respectively, P < .05). “These patients also exhibit reduced overall mortality compared to those treated with methotrexate or topical agents,” Dr. Gniadecki and colleagues wrote. “There was no difference in mortality between methotrexate patients and the topical therapy patients, but any of those treatment groups had superior survival compared to the no-treatment cohort.”

They added that despite better survival among patients treated with biologic agents, no significant improvements were detected in their comorbidity profiles. “Notably, the frequency of major cardiovascular disease (MI, CHF, CVA) was the same as in the controls, and overall, the frequency of diseases coded as cardiovascular was slightly increased,” they wrote.

The fact that some factors could not be measured, including the type and severity of psoriasis, response to treatment, smoking history, and alcohol intake, was a study limitation, they noted.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the analysis, said the study confirms prior work indicating that having psoriasis is a predictor of mortality. In addition, “there is a strong healthy user affect among patients who take and stay on biologics for psoriasis,” he told this news organization.