Rheumatology News

TOPLINE:

Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
• Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
• Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
• PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
• A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.

TAKEAWAY:

• Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
• Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
• High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
• Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.

IN PRACTICE:

“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
• Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
• Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
• PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
• A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.

TAKEAWAY:

• Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
• Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
• High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
• Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.

IN PRACTICE:

“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
• Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
• Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
• PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
• A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.

TAKEAWAY:

• Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
• Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
• High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
• Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.

IN PRACTICE:

“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There are five reasons you do not want to order that notorious antinuclear antibody (ANA) test — when a patient comes into your office and you say, “Let’s just run a wellness check” and you order the ANA test, or the patient comes in and says, “Hey doc, order everything, okay?” — without really thinking these things through.

1. I’m sure you know that the ANA test, if positive, does not exclude other conditions. For instance, older women could have a positive ANA test; it’s very common in this group. 

2. There’s a high false-positive rate for an ANA test. For instance, cancers and viral infections can cause an ANA test to be positive, and certain medications can cause a false-positive ANA test. 

3. Context matters. If you have a patient that has particular symptoms, joint swelling, a strong family history of autoimmune disease, a luminal rash that you can’t understand, hair loss, those kind of things, then yes, when you order that ANA test, it’s going to be valuable. If the patient does not have those symptoms, you are just running down this rabbit hole that causes worry for you and your patient. 

4. The ANA test on its own is not helpful until you order the subtypes. Double-stranded DNA and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies are just a few examples of the subtypes of the ANA test that really help you understand what you ordered. 

5. The elephant in the room: What is the pretest probability of your diagnostic test — all the symptoms, the hair loss, the malar rash, the sores in the mouth, the joint swelling, the blood in the urine? Fluid around the heart, pericarditis, pleurisy, those kinds of symptoms, right? When you have those symptoms and you order an ANA test, then you have basically put directions into your GPS. So now you know that if the test is positive, these are the things you’re going to do with the test going forward.

I hope that these five things have told you: Hey, before you order that ANA test, let’s make sure that we’re not causing unnecessary stress for our patients and also minimizing unnecessary testing.

Dr. Dada, CEO, Overlake Arthritis and Osteoporosis Center, Bellevue, Washington, disclosed ties with Horizon Pharmaceuticals.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There are five reasons you do not want to order that notorious antinuclear antibody (ANA) test — when a patient comes into your office and you say, “Let’s just run a wellness check” and you order the ANA test, or the patient comes in and says, “Hey doc, order everything, okay?” — without really thinking these things through.

1. I’m sure you know that the ANA test, if positive, does not exclude other conditions. For instance, older women could have a positive ANA test; it’s very common in this group. 

2. There’s a high false-positive rate for an ANA test. For instance, cancers and viral infections can cause an ANA test to be positive, and certain medications can cause a false-positive ANA test. 

3. Context matters. If you have a patient that has particular symptoms, joint swelling, a strong family history of autoimmune disease, a luminal rash that you can’t understand, hair loss, those kind of things, then yes, when you order that ANA test, it’s going to be valuable. If the patient does not have those symptoms, you are just running down this rabbit hole that causes worry for you and your patient. 

4. The ANA test on its own is not helpful until you order the subtypes. Double-stranded DNA and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies are just a few examples of the subtypes of the ANA test that really help you understand what you ordered. 

5. The elephant in the room: What is the pretest probability of your diagnostic test — all the symptoms, the hair loss, the malar rash, the sores in the mouth, the joint swelling, the blood in the urine? Fluid around the heart, pericarditis, pleurisy, those kinds of symptoms, right? When you have those symptoms and you order an ANA test, then you have basically put directions into your GPS. So now you know that if the test is positive, these are the things you’re going to do with the test going forward.

I hope that these five things have told you: Hey, before you order that ANA test, let’s make sure that we’re not causing unnecessary stress for our patients and also minimizing unnecessary testing.

Dr. Dada, CEO, Overlake Arthritis and Osteoporosis Center, Bellevue, Washington, disclosed ties with Horizon Pharmaceuticals.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There are five reasons you do not want to order that notorious antinuclear antibody (ANA) test — when a patient comes into your office and you say, “Let’s just run a wellness check” and you order the ANA test, or the patient comes in and says, “Hey doc, order everything, okay?” — without really thinking these things through.

1. I’m sure you know that the ANA test, if positive, does not exclude other conditions. For instance, older women could have a positive ANA test; it’s very common in this group. 

2. There’s a high false-positive rate for an ANA test. For instance, cancers and viral infections can cause an ANA test to be positive, and certain medications can cause a false-positive ANA test. 

3. Context matters. If you have a patient that has particular symptoms, joint swelling, a strong family history of autoimmune disease, a luminal rash that you can’t understand, hair loss, those kind of things, then yes, when you order that ANA test, it’s going to be valuable. If the patient does not have those symptoms, you are just running down this rabbit hole that causes worry for you and your patient. 

4. The ANA test on its own is not helpful until you order the subtypes. Double-stranded DNA and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies are just a few examples of the subtypes of the ANA test that really help you understand what you ordered. 

5. The elephant in the room: What is the pretest probability of your diagnostic test — all the symptoms, the hair loss, the malar rash, the sores in the mouth, the joint swelling, the blood in the urine? Fluid around the heart, pericarditis, pleurisy, those kinds of symptoms, right? When you have those symptoms and you order an ANA test, then you have basically put directions into your GPS. So now you know that if the test is positive, these are the things you’re going to do with the test going forward.

I hope that these five things have told you: Hey, before you order that ANA test, let’s make sure that we’re not causing unnecessary stress for our patients and also minimizing unnecessary testing.

Dr. Dada, CEO, Overlake Arthritis and Osteoporosis Center, Bellevue, Washington, disclosed ties with Horizon Pharmaceuticals.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

This article was created 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.

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

This article was created 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.

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

This article was created 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.

TOPLINE:

MRI-derived abdominal adipose tissue is linked to chronic musculoskeletal pain in multiple sites. The association is stronger in women, suggesting sex differences in fat distribution and hormones.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort study, to investigate the associations between MRI-measured abdominal adipose tissue and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
• A total of 32,409 participants (50.8% women; mean age, 55.0 ± 7.4 years) were included in the analysis, with abdominal MRI scans performed at two imaging visits.
• Pain in the neck/shoulder, back, hip, knee, or “all over the body” was assessed, and participants were categorized based on the number of chronic pain sites.
• Mixed-effects ordinal, multinomial, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and their ratio with chronic pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, there was a dose-response association between VAT, SAT, and their ratio with the number of chronic pain sites in both women and men.
• Higher levels of abdominal adipose tissue were associated with greater odds of reporting chronic pain in both sexes, with effect estimates being relatively larger in women.
• The researchers found that the VAT/SAT ratio was associated with the number of chronic pain sites and chronic pain in both sexes, reflecting differences in fat distribution and hormones.
• The study suggested that excessive abdominal adipose tissue may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“Abdominal adipose tissue was associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain, suggesting that excessive and ectopic fat depositions may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Zemene Demelash Kifle, University of Tasmania Menzies Institute for Medical Research in Hobart, Australia. It was published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included the use of a pain questionnaire that did not assess pain severity, which limited the ability to examine the relationship between fat measures and pain severity. Additionally, MRI was conducted on only two occasions, which may have not captured patterns and fluctuations in chronic pain sites. The relatively small size of the imaging sample, compared with the original baseline sample limited the generalizability of the findings. The predominant White ethnicity of participants also limited the generalizability to diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Mr. Kifle disclosed receiving grants from the Australian NHMRC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MRI-derived abdominal adipose tissue is linked to chronic musculoskeletal pain in multiple sites. The association is stronger in women, suggesting sex differences in fat distribution and hormones.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort study, to investigate the associations between MRI-measured abdominal adipose tissue and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
• A total of 32,409 participants (50.8% women; mean age, 55.0 ± 7.4 years) were included in the analysis, with abdominal MRI scans performed at two imaging visits.
• Pain in the neck/shoulder, back, hip, knee, or “all over the body” was assessed, and participants were categorized based on the number of chronic pain sites.
• Mixed-effects ordinal, multinomial, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and their ratio with chronic pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, there was a dose-response association between VAT, SAT, and their ratio with the number of chronic pain sites in both women and men.
• Higher levels of abdominal adipose tissue were associated with greater odds of reporting chronic pain in both sexes, with effect estimates being relatively larger in women.
• The researchers found that the VAT/SAT ratio was associated with the number of chronic pain sites and chronic pain in both sexes, reflecting differences in fat distribution and hormones.
• The study suggested that excessive abdominal adipose tissue may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“Abdominal adipose tissue was associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain, suggesting that excessive and ectopic fat depositions may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Zemene Demelash Kifle, University of Tasmania Menzies Institute for Medical Research in Hobart, Australia. It was published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included the use of a pain questionnaire that did not assess pain severity, which limited the ability to examine the relationship between fat measures and pain severity. Additionally, MRI was conducted on only two occasions, which may have not captured patterns and fluctuations in chronic pain sites. The relatively small size of the imaging sample, compared with the original baseline sample limited the generalizability of the findings. The predominant White ethnicity of participants also limited the generalizability to diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Mr. Kifle disclosed receiving grants from the Australian NHMRC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MRI-derived abdominal adipose tissue is linked to chronic musculoskeletal pain in multiple sites. The association is stronger in women, suggesting sex differences in fat distribution and hormones.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort study, to investigate the associations between MRI-measured abdominal adipose tissue and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
• A total of 32,409 participants (50.8% women; mean age, 55.0 ± 7.4 years) were included in the analysis, with abdominal MRI scans performed at two imaging visits.
• Pain in the neck/shoulder, back, hip, knee, or “all over the body” was assessed, and participants were categorized based on the number of chronic pain sites.
• Mixed-effects ordinal, multinomial, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and their ratio with chronic pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, there was a dose-response association between VAT, SAT, and their ratio with the number of chronic pain sites in both women and men.
• Higher levels of abdominal adipose tissue were associated with greater odds of reporting chronic pain in both sexes, with effect estimates being relatively larger in women.
• The researchers found that the VAT/SAT ratio was associated with the number of chronic pain sites and chronic pain in both sexes, reflecting differences in fat distribution and hormones.
• The study suggested that excessive abdominal adipose tissue may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“Abdominal adipose tissue was associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain, suggesting that excessive and ectopic fat depositions may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Zemene Demelash Kifle, University of Tasmania Menzies Institute for Medical Research in Hobart, Australia. It was published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included the use of a pain questionnaire that did not assess pain severity, which limited the ability to examine the relationship between fat measures and pain severity. Additionally, MRI was conducted on only two occasions, which may have not captured patterns and fluctuations in chronic pain sites. The relatively small size of the imaging sample, compared with the original baseline sample limited the generalizability of the findings. The predominant White ethnicity of participants also limited the generalizability to diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Mr. Kifle disclosed receiving grants from the Australian NHMRC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Physicians are called to record clinical details of patients with asthma undergoing biologic therapy to monitor clinical remission and keep an eye on eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) symptoms as patients come off the medications, according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.

Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.

In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
 

Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma

Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.

To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.

GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.

An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”

He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
 

Biologics and EGPA

In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.

The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.

The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.

The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Physicians are called to record clinical details of patients with asthma undergoing biologic therapy to monitor clinical remission and keep an eye on eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) symptoms as patients come off the medications, according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.

Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.

In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
 

Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma

Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.

To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.

GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.

An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”

He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
 

Biologics and EGPA

In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.

The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.

The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.

The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Physicians are called to record clinical details of patients with asthma undergoing biologic therapy to monitor clinical remission and keep an eye on eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) symptoms as patients come off the medications, according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.

Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.

In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
 

Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma

Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.

To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.

GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.

An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”

He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
 

Biologics and EGPA

In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.

The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.

The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.

The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk for gout, more strongly in men than in women. This sex-specific difference may be attributed to the different types of alcohol consumed by men and women, rather than biologic variations.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study investigated the association between total and specific alcohol consumption and the long-term risk for incident gout in 179,828 men (mean age, 56.0 years) and 221,300 women (mean age, 56.0 years) from the UK Biobank who did not have gout at baseline.
• Alcohol consumption was assessed using a computer-assisted touch screen system. Among men, 2.9%, 3.6%, and 93.6% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively. Among women, 5.9%, 3.6%, and 90.5% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively.
• Participants were also required to share details about their weekly alcohol intake and the types of alcoholic beverages they consumed (red wine, champagne or white wine, beer or cider, spirits, or fortified wine).
• The median follow-up duration of this study was 12.7 years.
• Cases of incident gout during the follow-up period were identified using hospital records and the International Classification of Diseases codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for gout was 69% higher in men who were current drinkers than in those who were never drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.18), while an inverse association was observed in women who were current drinkers, although it was not statistically significant. A significant interaction was observed between drinking status and sex (P < .001 for interaction).
• Among current drinkers, more frequent alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk for gout among both sexes, with the association being stronger in men (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.84-2.30) than in women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61).
• The consumption of beer or cider was higher in men than in women (4.2 vs 0.4 pints/wk).
• Among all alcoholic beverages, the consumption of beer or cider (per 1 pint/d) showed the strongest association with the risk for gout in both men (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.67) and women (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02-2.57).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed sex-specific difference in the association of total alcohol consumption with incident gout may be owing to differences between men and women in the types of alcohol consumed rather than biological differences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jie-Qiong Lyu, MPH, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University in China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The frequency of alcohol consumption was self-reported, leading to potential misclassification. Incident cases of gout were identified from hospital records, which may have caused some undiagnosed cases or those diagnosed only in primary care settings to be missed. Most participants were of European descent and relatively healthier than the general population, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Gusu Leading Talent Plan for Scientific and Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk for gout, more strongly in men than in women. This sex-specific difference may be attributed to the different types of alcohol consumed by men and women, rather than biologic variations.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study investigated the association between total and specific alcohol consumption and the long-term risk for incident gout in 179,828 men (mean age, 56.0 years) and 221,300 women (mean age, 56.0 years) from the UK Biobank who did not have gout at baseline.
• Alcohol consumption was assessed using a computer-assisted touch screen system. Among men, 2.9%, 3.6%, and 93.6% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively. Among women, 5.9%, 3.6%, and 90.5% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively.
• Participants were also required to share details about their weekly alcohol intake and the types of alcoholic beverages they consumed (red wine, champagne or white wine, beer or cider, spirits, or fortified wine).
• The median follow-up duration of this study was 12.7 years.
• Cases of incident gout during the follow-up period were identified using hospital records and the International Classification of Diseases codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for gout was 69% higher in men who were current drinkers than in those who were never drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.18), while an inverse association was observed in women who were current drinkers, although it was not statistically significant. A significant interaction was observed between drinking status and sex (P < .001 for interaction).
• Among current drinkers, more frequent alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk for gout among both sexes, with the association being stronger in men (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.84-2.30) than in women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61).
• The consumption of beer or cider was higher in men than in women (4.2 vs 0.4 pints/wk).
• Among all alcoholic beverages, the consumption of beer or cider (per 1 pint/d) showed the strongest association with the risk for gout in both men (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.67) and women (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02-2.57).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed sex-specific difference in the association of total alcohol consumption with incident gout may be owing to differences between men and women in the types of alcohol consumed rather than biological differences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jie-Qiong Lyu, MPH, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University in China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The frequency of alcohol consumption was self-reported, leading to potential misclassification. Incident cases of gout were identified from hospital records, which may have caused some undiagnosed cases or those diagnosed only in primary care settings to be missed. Most participants were of European descent and relatively healthier than the general population, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Gusu Leading Talent Plan for Scientific and Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk for gout, more strongly in men than in women. This sex-specific difference may be attributed to the different types of alcohol consumed by men and women, rather than biologic variations.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study investigated the association between total and specific alcohol consumption and the long-term risk for incident gout in 179,828 men (mean age, 56.0 years) and 221,300 women (mean age, 56.0 years) from the UK Biobank who did not have gout at baseline.
• Alcohol consumption was assessed using a computer-assisted touch screen system. Among men, 2.9%, 3.6%, and 93.6% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively. Among women, 5.9%, 3.6%, and 90.5% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively.
• Participants were also required to share details about their weekly alcohol intake and the types of alcoholic beverages they consumed (red wine, champagne or white wine, beer or cider, spirits, or fortified wine).
• The median follow-up duration of this study was 12.7 years.
• Cases of incident gout during the follow-up period were identified using hospital records and the International Classification of Diseases codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for gout was 69% higher in men who were current drinkers than in those who were never drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.18), while an inverse association was observed in women who were current drinkers, although it was not statistically significant. A significant interaction was observed between drinking status and sex (P < .001 for interaction).
• Among current drinkers, more frequent alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk for gout among both sexes, with the association being stronger in men (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.84-2.30) than in women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61).
• The consumption of beer or cider was higher in men than in women (4.2 vs 0.4 pints/wk).
• Among all alcoholic beverages, the consumption of beer or cider (per 1 pint/d) showed the strongest association with the risk for gout in both men (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.67) and women (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02-2.57).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed sex-specific difference in the association of total alcohol consumption with incident gout may be owing to differences between men and women in the types of alcohol consumed rather than biological differences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jie-Qiong Lyu, MPH, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University in China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The frequency of alcohol consumption was self-reported, leading to potential misclassification. Incident cases of gout were identified from hospital records, which may have caused some undiagnosed cases or those diagnosed only in primary care settings to be missed. Most participants were of European descent and relatively healthier than the general population, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Gusu Leading Talent Plan for Scientific and Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New COVID-19 vaccines formulated for better protection against the currently circulating variants have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID vaccines available this fall have been updated to better match the currently circulating COVID strains, said William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.

“The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — both mRNA vaccines — target the KP.2 variant, while the Novavax vaccine targets the JN.1 variant, which is a predecessor to KP.2,” said Dr. Schaffner, who also serves as a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “The Novavax vaccine is a protein adjuvant vaccine made in a more traditional fashion and may appeal to those who remain hesitant about receiving an mRNA vaccine,” he explained. However, all three vaccines are designed to protect against severe COVID illness and reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, he said.
 

Who Needs It?

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continues to recommend that everyone in the United States who is age 6 months and older receive the updated COVID vaccine this fall, along with influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“This was not a surprise because COVID will produce a sizable winter outbreak,” he predicted. Although older people and those who have chronic medical conditions such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or other immunocompromising conditions suffer the most serious impact of COVID, he said. “The virus can strike anyone, even the young and healthy.” The risk for long COVID persists as well, he pointed out.

The ACIP recommendation is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional organizations, Dr. Shaffner said.

A frequently asked question is whether the COVID and flu vaccines can be given at the same time, and the answer is yes, according to a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“The optimal time to be vaccinated is late September and anytime during October in order to get the benefit of protection through the winter,” Dr. Schaffner said.

As with earlier versions of the COVID-19 vaccine, side effects vary from person to person. Reported side effects of the updated vaccine are similar to those seen with earlier versions and may include injection site pain, redness and swelling, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, nausea, and fever, but most of these are short-lived, according to the CDC.
 

Clinical Guidance

The CDC’s clinical guidance for COVID-19 vaccination outlines more specific guidance for vaccination based on age, vaccination history, and immunocompromised status and will be updated as needed.

A notable difference in the latest guidance is the recommendation of only one shot for adults aged 65 years and older who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, the CDC recommends two to three doses of the same brand of vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner strongly encouraged clinicians to recommend the COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible patients. “COVID is a nasty virus that can cause serious disease in anyone,” and protection from previous vaccination or prior infection has likely waned, he said.

Dr. Schaffner also encouraged healthcare professionals and their families to lead by example. “We should all be vaccinated and let our patients know that we are vaccinated and that we want all our patents to be protected,” he said.

The updated COVID-19 vaccination recommendations have become much simpler for clinicians and patients, with a single messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine required for anyone older than 5 years, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

“The recommendations are a bit more complex for children under 5 years old receiving their first vaccination; they require two to three doses depending on the brand,” he said. “It is important to review the latest recommendations to plan the doses with the correct interval timing. Considering the doses may be 3-4 weeks apart, start early,” he advised.
 

One-Time Dosing

Although the updated mRNA vaccine is currently recommended as a one-time dose, Dr. Cennimo said he can envision a scenario later in the season when a second dose is recommended for the elderly and those at high risk for severe illness. Dr. Cennimo said that he strongly agrees with the recommendations that everyone aged 6 months and older receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Older age remains the prime risk factor, but anyone can become infected, he said.

Predicting a prime time to get vaccinated is tricky because no one knows when the expected rise in winter cases will occur, said Dr. Cennimo.

“We know from years of flu vaccine data that some number of people who delay the vaccine will never return and will miss protection,” he said. Therefore, delaying vaccination is not recommended. Dr. Cennimo plans to follow his habit of getting vaccinated in early October. “I anticipate the maximal effectiveness of the vaccine will carry me through the winter,” he said.

Data support the safety and effectiveness for both flu and COVID vaccines if they are given together, and some research on earlier versions of COVID vaccines suggested that receiving flu and COVID vaccines together might increase the antibody response against COVID, but similar studies of the updated version have not been done, Dr. Cennimo said.

Clinicians may have to overcome the barrier of COVID fatigue to encourage vaccination, Dr. Cennimo said. Many people say they “want it to be over,” he said, but SARS-CoV-2, established as a viral respiratory infection, shows no signs of disappearing. In addition, new data continue to show higher mortality associated with COVID-19 than with influenza, he said.

“We need to explain to our patients that COVID-19 is still here and is still dangerous. The yearly influenza vaccination campaigns should have established and normalized the idea of an updated vaccine targeted for the season’s predicated strains is expected,” he emphasized. “We now have years of safety data behind these vaccines, and we need to make a strong recommendation for this protection,” he said.

COVID-19 vaccines are covered by private insurance, as well as by Medicare and Medicaid, according to the CDC. Vaccination for uninsured children is covered through the Vaccines for Children Program.

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

New COVID-19 vaccines formulated for better protection against the currently circulating variants have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID vaccines available this fall have been updated to better match the currently circulating COVID strains, said William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.

“The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — both mRNA vaccines — target the KP.2 variant, while the Novavax vaccine targets the JN.1 variant, which is a predecessor to KP.2,” said Dr. Schaffner, who also serves as a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “The Novavax vaccine is a protein adjuvant vaccine made in a more traditional fashion and may appeal to those who remain hesitant about receiving an mRNA vaccine,” he explained. However, all three vaccines are designed to protect against severe COVID illness and reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, he said.
 

Who Needs It?

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continues to recommend that everyone in the United States who is age 6 months and older receive the updated COVID vaccine this fall, along with influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“This was not a surprise because COVID will produce a sizable winter outbreak,” he predicted. Although older people and those who have chronic medical conditions such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or other immunocompromising conditions suffer the most serious impact of COVID, he said. “The virus can strike anyone, even the young and healthy.” The risk for long COVID persists as well, he pointed out.

The ACIP recommendation is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional organizations, Dr. Shaffner said.

A frequently asked question is whether the COVID and flu vaccines can be given at the same time, and the answer is yes, according to a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“The optimal time to be vaccinated is late September and anytime during October in order to get the benefit of protection through the winter,” Dr. Schaffner said.

As with earlier versions of the COVID-19 vaccine, side effects vary from person to person. Reported side effects of the updated vaccine are similar to those seen with earlier versions and may include injection site pain, redness and swelling, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, nausea, and fever, but most of these are short-lived, according to the CDC.
 

Clinical Guidance

The CDC’s clinical guidance for COVID-19 vaccination outlines more specific guidance for vaccination based on age, vaccination history, and immunocompromised status and will be updated as needed.

A notable difference in the latest guidance is the recommendation of only one shot for adults aged 65 years and older who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, the CDC recommends two to three doses of the same brand of vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner strongly encouraged clinicians to recommend the COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible patients. “COVID is a nasty virus that can cause serious disease in anyone,” and protection from previous vaccination or prior infection has likely waned, he said.

Dr. Schaffner also encouraged healthcare professionals and their families to lead by example. “We should all be vaccinated and let our patients know that we are vaccinated and that we want all our patents to be protected,” he said.

The updated COVID-19 vaccination recommendations have become much simpler for clinicians and patients, with a single messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine required for anyone older than 5 years, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

“The recommendations are a bit more complex for children under 5 years old receiving their first vaccination; they require two to three doses depending on the brand,” he said. “It is important to review the latest recommendations to plan the doses with the correct interval timing. Considering the doses may be 3-4 weeks apart, start early,” he advised.
 

One-Time Dosing

Although the updated mRNA vaccine is currently recommended as a one-time dose, Dr. Cennimo said he can envision a scenario later in the season when a second dose is recommended for the elderly and those at high risk for severe illness. Dr. Cennimo said that he strongly agrees with the recommendations that everyone aged 6 months and older receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Older age remains the prime risk factor, but anyone can become infected, he said.

Predicting a prime time to get vaccinated is tricky because no one knows when the expected rise in winter cases will occur, said Dr. Cennimo.

“We know from years of flu vaccine data that some number of people who delay the vaccine will never return and will miss protection,” he said. Therefore, delaying vaccination is not recommended. Dr. Cennimo plans to follow his habit of getting vaccinated in early October. “I anticipate the maximal effectiveness of the vaccine will carry me through the winter,” he said.

Data support the safety and effectiveness for both flu and COVID vaccines if they are given together, and some research on earlier versions of COVID vaccines suggested that receiving flu and COVID vaccines together might increase the antibody response against COVID, but similar studies of the updated version have not been done, Dr. Cennimo said.

Clinicians may have to overcome the barrier of COVID fatigue to encourage vaccination, Dr. Cennimo said. Many people say they “want it to be over,” he said, but SARS-CoV-2, established as a viral respiratory infection, shows no signs of disappearing. In addition, new data continue to show higher mortality associated with COVID-19 than with influenza, he said.

“We need to explain to our patients that COVID-19 is still here and is still dangerous. The yearly influenza vaccination campaigns should have established and normalized the idea of an updated vaccine targeted for the season’s predicated strains is expected,” he emphasized. “We now have years of safety data behind these vaccines, and we need to make a strong recommendation for this protection,” he said.

COVID-19 vaccines are covered by private insurance, as well as by Medicare and Medicaid, according to the CDC. Vaccination for uninsured children is covered through the Vaccines for Children Program.

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

New COVID-19 vaccines formulated for better protection against the currently circulating variants have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID vaccines available this fall have been updated to better match the currently circulating COVID strains, said William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.

“The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — both mRNA vaccines — target the KP.2 variant, while the Novavax vaccine targets the JN.1 variant, which is a predecessor to KP.2,” said Dr. Schaffner, who also serves as a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “The Novavax vaccine is a protein adjuvant vaccine made in a more traditional fashion and may appeal to those who remain hesitant about receiving an mRNA vaccine,” he explained. However, all three vaccines are designed to protect against severe COVID illness and reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, he said.
 

Who Needs It?

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continues to recommend that everyone in the United States who is age 6 months and older receive the updated COVID vaccine this fall, along with influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“This was not a surprise because COVID will produce a sizable winter outbreak,” he predicted. Although older people and those who have chronic medical conditions such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or other immunocompromising conditions suffer the most serious impact of COVID, he said. “The virus can strike anyone, even the young and healthy.” The risk for long COVID persists as well, he pointed out.

The ACIP recommendation is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional organizations, Dr. Shaffner said.

A frequently asked question is whether the COVID and flu vaccines can be given at the same time, and the answer is yes, according to a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“The optimal time to be vaccinated is late September and anytime during October in order to get the benefit of protection through the winter,” Dr. Schaffner said.

As with earlier versions of the COVID-19 vaccine, side effects vary from person to person. Reported side effects of the updated vaccine are similar to those seen with earlier versions and may include injection site pain, redness and swelling, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, nausea, and fever, but most of these are short-lived, according to the CDC.
 

Clinical Guidance

The CDC’s clinical guidance for COVID-19 vaccination outlines more specific guidance for vaccination based on age, vaccination history, and immunocompromised status and will be updated as needed.

A notable difference in the latest guidance is the recommendation of only one shot for adults aged 65 years and older who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, the CDC recommends two to three doses of the same brand of vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner strongly encouraged clinicians to recommend the COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible patients. “COVID is a nasty virus that can cause serious disease in anyone,” and protection from previous vaccination or prior infection has likely waned, he said.

Dr. Schaffner also encouraged healthcare professionals and their families to lead by example. “We should all be vaccinated and let our patients know that we are vaccinated and that we want all our patents to be protected,” he said.

The updated COVID-19 vaccination recommendations have become much simpler for clinicians and patients, with a single messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine required for anyone older than 5 years, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

“The recommendations are a bit more complex for children under 5 years old receiving their first vaccination; they require two to three doses depending on the brand,” he said. “It is important to review the latest recommendations to plan the doses with the correct interval timing. Considering the doses may be 3-4 weeks apart, start early,” he advised.
 

One-Time Dosing

Although the updated mRNA vaccine is currently recommended as a one-time dose, Dr. Cennimo said he can envision a scenario later in the season when a second dose is recommended for the elderly and those at high risk for severe illness. Dr. Cennimo said that he strongly agrees with the recommendations that everyone aged 6 months and older receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Older age remains the prime risk factor, but anyone can become infected, he said.

Predicting a prime time to get vaccinated is tricky because no one knows when the expected rise in winter cases will occur, said Dr. Cennimo.

“We know from years of flu vaccine data that some number of people who delay the vaccine will never return and will miss protection,” he said. Therefore, delaying vaccination is not recommended. Dr. Cennimo plans to follow his habit of getting vaccinated in early October. “I anticipate the maximal effectiveness of the vaccine will carry me through the winter,” he said.

Data support the safety and effectiveness for both flu and COVID vaccines if they are given together, and some research on earlier versions of COVID vaccines suggested that receiving flu and COVID vaccines together might increase the antibody response against COVID, but similar studies of the updated version have not been done, Dr. Cennimo said.

Clinicians may have to overcome the barrier of COVID fatigue to encourage vaccination, Dr. Cennimo said. Many people say they “want it to be over,” he said, but SARS-CoV-2, established as a viral respiratory infection, shows no signs of disappearing. In addition, new data continue to show higher mortality associated with COVID-19 than with influenza, he said.

“We need to explain to our patients that COVID-19 is still here and is still dangerous. The yearly influenza vaccination campaigns should have established and normalized the idea of an updated vaccine targeted for the season’s predicated strains is expected,” he emphasized. “We now have years of safety data behind these vaccines, and we need to make a strong recommendation for this protection,” he said.

COVID-19 vaccines are covered by private insurance, as well as by Medicare and Medicaid, according to the CDC. Vaccination for uninsured children is covered through the Vaccines for Children Program.

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