Guidelines

New evidence–based clinical practice guidelines from the Alzheimer’s Association provide updated recommendations on evaluating individuals suspected of having Alzheimer’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease–related neurodegenerative disorders in both primary and specialty care settings.

This is the first update since 2001 for specialists and the first guideline for primary care physicians. Executive summaries of the guidelines were published in three articles online on December 23 in a special issue of Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 

What’s New? 

“With this guideline, we expand the scope of prior guidelines by providing recommendations for practicing clinicians on the process from start to finish,” coauthor Brad Dickerson, MD, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Frontotemporal Disorders Unit and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a statement.

“If clinicians adopt these recommendations and healthcare systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings,” Dickerson added in an interview.

Through a modified-Delphi approach and guideline-development process, an expert workgroup representing primary and specialty care reviewed 7374 publications, of which 133 met inclusion criteria.

Based on the information, the workgroup outlined a three-step patient-centered evaluation process, which includes assessing cognitive functional status, identifying the cognitive-behavioral syndrome based on specific symptoms, and determining the likely brain diseases or conditions causing the symptoms.

 

What Are the Key Recommendations?

The guidelines include 19 “practical” recommendations that are applicable to any practice setting. They capture the core elements of a high-quality evaluation and disclosure process, the author said. Here is a brief summary of the recommendations: 

Initial evaluation: Perform a multitiered evaluation for patients who self-report or whose care partner or clinician reports cognitive, behavioral, or functional changes.

Patient-centered communication: Partner with the patient and/or care partner to establish shared goals for the evaluation process; assess the patient’s capacity to engage in goal setting.

Diagnostic formulation: Use a tiered approach to assessments and tests based on individual presentation, risk factors, and profile, aiming to determine the level of impairment, cognitive-behavioral syndrome, and likely causes and contributing factors.

History taking: Gather reliable information from informants about changes in cognition, activities of daily living, mood, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sensory/motor functions. Document individualized risk factors for cognitive decline.

Examination: Conduct a comprehensive examination of cognition, mood, behavior, and a dementia-focused neurologic evaluation using validated tools.

Laboratory tests: Perform tiered, individualized laboratory evaluations, starting with routine tests for all patients.

Structural imaging: Obtain structural brain imaging (MRI preferred, CT as an alternative) to help establish a cause.

Ongoing communication: Engage in ongoing dialogue with patient/care partner to guide them throughout the diagnostic process.

Diagnostic disclosure: Share findings honestly and compassionately, explaining the syndrome, its severity, probable cause, prognosis, treatment options and support resources.

Specialist referral: Refer patients with atypical, uncertain, early-onset, or rapidly progressing symptoms to a dementia subspecialist.

Neuropsychological testing: Use in instances of diagnostic uncertainty or patients with complex clinical profiles. At a minimum, the neuropsychological evaluation should include normed neuropsychological testing of the domains of learning and memory (in particular delayed free and cued recall/recognition), attention, executive function, visuospatial function, and language.

Advanced diagnostic testing: When diagnostic uncertainty remains, obtain additional laboratory tests tailored to individual patient profiles.

Molecular imaging: In a patient with an established cognitive-behavioral syndrome in whom there is continued diagnostic uncertainty regarding cause(s) after structural imaging, a dementia specialist can obtain molecular imaging with fluorodeoxyglucose PET to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis: Utilize CSF biomarkers to evaluate amyloid beta and tau profiles in cases with unresolved diagnostic uncertainty.

Amyloid PET imaging: Perform amyloid PET scans for patients with persistent diagnostic uncertainty after other assessments.

Genetic counseling and testing: Consider genetic testing for patients with strong autosomal dominant family histories and involve a genetic counselor.

 

Future Directions?

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer and medical affairs lead for the Alzheimer’s Association, encourages clinicians to incorporate these guidelines into their practice.

“These guidelines are important because they guide clinicians in the evaluation of memory complaints, which could have many underlying causes. That is the necessary start for an early and accurate Alzheimer’s diagnosis,” Carrillo said in a statement.

Dickerson said the new guidelines do not address blood-based biomarkers “because nobody really feels that they are ready for prime time yet, even though they’re getting rolled out as clinical products.” 

However, the recommendations will be revised as needed. “That’s one of the values of setting this up as a process; whenever any new development occurs, it will be easy to update the guidelines to show where that new test or new biomarker fits in the overall process,” he said.

 

New Appropriate Use Guidance

A separate workgroup, jointly convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, has revised appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid PET imaging and developed AUC for tau PET imaging.

They were simultaneously published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia and The Journal of Nuclear Medicine. They are the first revision since the initial AUC for amyloid PET was introduced in 2013.

“The updated amyloid/tau appropriate use criteria will help ensure these tracers are used in a cost-effective manner and the scan results will be used appropriately to add value to the diagnosis and management of dementia,” said workgroup members Kevin Donohoe, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Phillip Kuo, MD, with City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.

The AUC include 17 real-world scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be considered, with the two tests considered separately and given their own rating for each scenario.

Overall, the strongest evidence for their use includes assessment and prognosis for people with mild cognitive impairment; assessment of people with dementia when the cause is not clearly known; and determining eligibility for treatment with new disease-modifying therapies, and monitoring response to these treatments, the workgroup said.

“Whereas the prior AUC was written at a time when only the deposition of amyloid could be documented, the new therapeutic agents allow us to demonstrate the actual clearance of amyloid during therapy,” Donohoe and Kuo explained.

“These new therapeutic agents are expensive and, as with most medications, may cause unwanted side effects. The most recent version of the AUC includes information about the appropriate use of amyloid imaging for both documenting the presence of amyloid deposits in the brain, making anti-amyloid therapy an option, as well as documenting the effectiveness of the therapeutic agents as amyloid is (or is not) cleared from the brain,” Donahoe and Kuo noted.

The revised AUC also state that, in most cases, amyloid and tau PET tests should not be used for people who do not have cognitive impairment, even if they carry the APOE4 risk-related gene for Alzheimer’s disease; nonmedical use such as for legal concerns, insurance coverage, or employment screening; and in place of genetic testing in patients suspected of carrying a disease-causing genetic mutation.

In a statement, lead author Gil D. Rabinovici, MD, with University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that the AUC “should be considered guidelines for clinicians, not a substitute for careful clinical judgment that considers the full clinical context for each patient with cognitive complaints.”

This research was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association. Disclosures for guideline authors are available with the original articles.

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

New evidence–based clinical practice guidelines from the Alzheimer’s Association provide updated recommendations on evaluating individuals suspected of having Alzheimer’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease–related neurodegenerative disorders in both primary and specialty care settings.

This is the first update since 2001 for specialists and the first guideline for primary care physicians. Executive summaries of the guidelines were published in three articles online on December 23 in a special issue of Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 

What’s New? 

“With this guideline, we expand the scope of prior guidelines by providing recommendations for practicing clinicians on the process from start to finish,” coauthor Brad Dickerson, MD, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Frontotemporal Disorders Unit and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a statement.

“If clinicians adopt these recommendations and healthcare systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings,” Dickerson added in an interview.

Through a modified-Delphi approach and guideline-development process, an expert workgroup representing primary and specialty care reviewed 7374 publications, of which 133 met inclusion criteria.

Based on the information, the workgroup outlined a three-step patient-centered evaluation process, which includes assessing cognitive functional status, identifying the cognitive-behavioral syndrome based on specific symptoms, and determining the likely brain diseases or conditions causing the symptoms.

 

What Are the Key Recommendations?

The guidelines include 19 “practical” recommendations that are applicable to any practice setting. They capture the core elements of a high-quality evaluation and disclosure process, the author said. Here is a brief summary of the recommendations: 

Initial evaluation: Perform a multitiered evaluation for patients who self-report or whose care partner or clinician reports cognitive, behavioral, or functional changes.

Patient-centered communication: Partner with the patient and/or care partner to establish shared goals for the evaluation process; assess the patient’s capacity to engage in goal setting.

Diagnostic formulation: Use a tiered approach to assessments and tests based on individual presentation, risk factors, and profile, aiming to determine the level of impairment, cognitive-behavioral syndrome, and likely causes and contributing factors.

History taking: Gather reliable information from informants about changes in cognition, activities of daily living, mood, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sensory/motor functions. Document individualized risk factors for cognitive decline.

Examination: Conduct a comprehensive examination of cognition, mood, behavior, and a dementia-focused neurologic evaluation using validated tools.

Laboratory tests: Perform tiered, individualized laboratory evaluations, starting with routine tests for all patients.

Structural imaging: Obtain structural brain imaging (MRI preferred, CT as an alternative) to help establish a cause.

Ongoing communication: Engage in ongoing dialogue with patient/care partner to guide them throughout the diagnostic process.

Diagnostic disclosure: Share findings honestly and compassionately, explaining the syndrome, its severity, probable cause, prognosis, treatment options and support resources.

Specialist referral: Refer patients with atypical, uncertain, early-onset, or rapidly progressing symptoms to a dementia subspecialist.

Neuropsychological testing: Use in instances of diagnostic uncertainty or patients with complex clinical profiles. At a minimum, the neuropsychological evaluation should include normed neuropsychological testing of the domains of learning and memory (in particular delayed free and cued recall/recognition), attention, executive function, visuospatial function, and language.

Advanced diagnostic testing: When diagnostic uncertainty remains, obtain additional laboratory tests tailored to individual patient profiles.

Molecular imaging: In a patient with an established cognitive-behavioral syndrome in whom there is continued diagnostic uncertainty regarding cause(s) after structural imaging, a dementia specialist can obtain molecular imaging with fluorodeoxyglucose PET to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis: Utilize CSF biomarkers to evaluate amyloid beta and tau profiles in cases with unresolved diagnostic uncertainty.

Amyloid PET imaging: Perform amyloid PET scans for patients with persistent diagnostic uncertainty after other assessments.

Genetic counseling and testing: Consider genetic testing for patients with strong autosomal dominant family histories and involve a genetic counselor.

 

Future Directions?

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer and medical affairs lead for the Alzheimer’s Association, encourages clinicians to incorporate these guidelines into their practice.

“These guidelines are important because they guide clinicians in the evaluation of memory complaints, which could have many underlying causes. That is the necessary start for an early and accurate Alzheimer’s diagnosis,” Carrillo said in a statement.

Dickerson said the new guidelines do not address blood-based biomarkers “because nobody really feels that they are ready for prime time yet, even though they’re getting rolled out as clinical products.” 

However, the recommendations will be revised as needed. “That’s one of the values of setting this up as a process; whenever any new development occurs, it will be easy to update the guidelines to show where that new test or new biomarker fits in the overall process,” he said.

 

New Appropriate Use Guidance

A separate workgroup, jointly convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, has revised appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid PET imaging and developed AUC for tau PET imaging.

They were simultaneously published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia and The Journal of Nuclear Medicine. They are the first revision since the initial AUC for amyloid PET was introduced in 2013.

“The updated amyloid/tau appropriate use criteria will help ensure these tracers are used in a cost-effective manner and the scan results will be used appropriately to add value to the diagnosis and management of dementia,” said workgroup members Kevin Donohoe, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Phillip Kuo, MD, with City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.

The AUC include 17 real-world scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be considered, with the two tests considered separately and given their own rating for each scenario.

Overall, the strongest evidence for their use includes assessment and prognosis for people with mild cognitive impairment; assessment of people with dementia when the cause is not clearly known; and determining eligibility for treatment with new disease-modifying therapies, and monitoring response to these treatments, the workgroup said.

“Whereas the prior AUC was written at a time when only the deposition of amyloid could be documented, the new therapeutic agents allow us to demonstrate the actual clearance of amyloid during therapy,” Donohoe and Kuo explained.

“These new therapeutic agents are expensive and, as with most medications, may cause unwanted side effects. The most recent version of the AUC includes information about the appropriate use of amyloid imaging for both documenting the presence of amyloid deposits in the brain, making anti-amyloid therapy an option, as well as documenting the effectiveness of the therapeutic agents as amyloid is (or is not) cleared from the brain,” Donahoe and Kuo noted.

The revised AUC also state that, in most cases, amyloid and tau PET tests should not be used for people who do not have cognitive impairment, even if they carry the APOE4 risk-related gene for Alzheimer’s disease; nonmedical use such as for legal concerns, insurance coverage, or employment screening; and in place of genetic testing in patients suspected of carrying a disease-causing genetic mutation.

In a statement, lead author Gil D. Rabinovici, MD, with University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that the AUC “should be considered guidelines for clinicians, not a substitute for careful clinical judgment that considers the full clinical context for each patient with cognitive complaints.”

This research was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association. Disclosures for guideline authors are available with the original articles.

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

New evidence–based clinical practice guidelines from the Alzheimer’s Association provide updated recommendations on evaluating individuals suspected of having Alzheimer’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease–related neurodegenerative disorders in both primary and specialty care settings.

This is the first update since 2001 for specialists and the first guideline for primary care physicians. Executive summaries of the guidelines were published in three articles online on December 23 in a special issue of Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 

What’s New? 

“With this guideline, we expand the scope of prior guidelines by providing recommendations for practicing clinicians on the process from start to finish,” coauthor Brad Dickerson, MD, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Frontotemporal Disorders Unit and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a statement.

“If clinicians adopt these recommendations and healthcare systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings,” Dickerson added in an interview.

Through a modified-Delphi approach and guideline-development process, an expert workgroup representing primary and specialty care reviewed 7374 publications, of which 133 met inclusion criteria.

Based on the information, the workgroup outlined a three-step patient-centered evaluation process, which includes assessing cognitive functional status, identifying the cognitive-behavioral syndrome based on specific symptoms, and determining the likely brain diseases or conditions causing the symptoms.

 

What Are the Key Recommendations?

The guidelines include 19 “practical” recommendations that are applicable to any practice setting. They capture the core elements of a high-quality evaluation and disclosure process, the author said. Here is a brief summary of the recommendations: 

Initial evaluation: Perform a multitiered evaluation for patients who self-report or whose care partner or clinician reports cognitive, behavioral, or functional changes.

Patient-centered communication: Partner with the patient and/or care partner to establish shared goals for the evaluation process; assess the patient’s capacity to engage in goal setting.

Diagnostic formulation: Use a tiered approach to assessments and tests based on individual presentation, risk factors, and profile, aiming to determine the level of impairment, cognitive-behavioral syndrome, and likely causes and contributing factors.

History taking: Gather reliable information from informants about changes in cognition, activities of daily living, mood, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sensory/motor functions. Document individualized risk factors for cognitive decline.

Examination: Conduct a comprehensive examination of cognition, mood, behavior, and a dementia-focused neurologic evaluation using validated tools.

Laboratory tests: Perform tiered, individualized laboratory evaluations, starting with routine tests for all patients.

Structural imaging: Obtain structural brain imaging (MRI preferred, CT as an alternative) to help establish a cause.

Ongoing communication: Engage in ongoing dialogue with patient/care partner to guide them throughout the diagnostic process.

Diagnostic disclosure: Share findings honestly and compassionately, explaining the syndrome, its severity, probable cause, prognosis, treatment options and support resources.

Specialist referral: Refer patients with atypical, uncertain, early-onset, or rapidly progressing symptoms to a dementia subspecialist.

Neuropsychological testing: Use in instances of diagnostic uncertainty or patients with complex clinical profiles. At a minimum, the neuropsychological evaluation should include normed neuropsychological testing of the domains of learning and memory (in particular delayed free and cued recall/recognition), attention, executive function, visuospatial function, and language.

Advanced diagnostic testing: When diagnostic uncertainty remains, obtain additional laboratory tests tailored to individual patient profiles.

Molecular imaging: In a patient with an established cognitive-behavioral syndrome in whom there is continued diagnostic uncertainty regarding cause(s) after structural imaging, a dementia specialist can obtain molecular imaging with fluorodeoxyglucose PET to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis: Utilize CSF biomarkers to evaluate amyloid beta and tau profiles in cases with unresolved diagnostic uncertainty.

Amyloid PET imaging: Perform amyloid PET scans for patients with persistent diagnostic uncertainty after other assessments.

Genetic counseling and testing: Consider genetic testing for patients with strong autosomal dominant family histories and involve a genetic counselor.

 

Future Directions?

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer and medical affairs lead for the Alzheimer’s Association, encourages clinicians to incorporate these guidelines into their practice.

“These guidelines are important because they guide clinicians in the evaluation of memory complaints, which could have many underlying causes. That is the necessary start for an early and accurate Alzheimer’s diagnosis,” Carrillo said in a statement.

Dickerson said the new guidelines do not address blood-based biomarkers “because nobody really feels that they are ready for prime time yet, even though they’re getting rolled out as clinical products.” 

However, the recommendations will be revised as needed. “That’s one of the values of setting this up as a process; whenever any new development occurs, it will be easy to update the guidelines to show where that new test or new biomarker fits in the overall process,” he said.

 

New Appropriate Use Guidance

A separate workgroup, jointly convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, has revised appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid PET imaging and developed AUC for tau PET imaging.

They were simultaneously published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia and The Journal of Nuclear Medicine. They are the first revision since the initial AUC for amyloid PET was introduced in 2013.

“The updated amyloid/tau appropriate use criteria will help ensure these tracers are used in a cost-effective manner and the scan results will be used appropriately to add value to the diagnosis and management of dementia,” said workgroup members Kevin Donohoe, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Phillip Kuo, MD, with City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.

The AUC include 17 real-world scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be considered, with the two tests considered separately and given their own rating for each scenario.

Overall, the strongest evidence for their use includes assessment and prognosis for people with mild cognitive impairment; assessment of people with dementia when the cause is not clearly known; and determining eligibility for treatment with new disease-modifying therapies, and monitoring response to these treatments, the workgroup said.

“Whereas the prior AUC was written at a time when only the deposition of amyloid could be documented, the new therapeutic agents allow us to demonstrate the actual clearance of amyloid during therapy,” Donohoe and Kuo explained.

“These new therapeutic agents are expensive and, as with most medications, may cause unwanted side effects. The most recent version of the AUC includes information about the appropriate use of amyloid imaging for both documenting the presence of amyloid deposits in the brain, making anti-amyloid therapy an option, as well as documenting the effectiveness of the therapeutic agents as amyloid is (or is not) cleared from the brain,” Donahoe and Kuo noted.

The revised AUC also state that, in most cases, amyloid and tau PET tests should not be used for people who do not have cognitive impairment, even if they carry the APOE4 risk-related gene for Alzheimer’s disease; nonmedical use such as for legal concerns, insurance coverage, or employment screening; and in place of genetic testing in patients suspected of carrying a disease-causing genetic mutation.

In a statement, lead author Gil D. Rabinovici, MD, with University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that the AUC “should be considered guidelines for clinicians, not a substitute for careful clinical judgment that considers the full clinical context for each patient with cognitive complaints.”

This research was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association. Disclosures for guideline authors are available with the original articles.

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

WASHINGTON — When the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) released its updated guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) at its 2024 Annual Meeting, they included recommendations for managing pediatric LN for the first time. 

The pediatric recommendations use the same classification criteria, outcome measures, and treatments as in adults — including the first-line triple therapy recommendation — but there remain important differences between pediatric and adult LN, Mary Beth Son, MD, clinical chief of immunology and section chief of rheumatology at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, and an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, told attendees. 

“In general, kids and adolescents with lupus are sicker,” Son said. They are more likely to have renal manifestations and neuropsychiatric lupus at diagnosis, compared with adults. Further, “although the disease is the same, it’s happening to kids and adolescents who are undergoing critical periods of growth and development.” 

Medication risk profiles also shift for younger patients, Son noted. 

“Importantly, they’re at risk for higher cumulative dosing of both glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide,” Son said. “When we give an adolescent a course of cyclophosphamide, we have to be aware that this might be the first of a few courses over the course of the lifetime disease, and with increasing numbers of cyclophosphamide courses, you have increased risk for infertility and malignancy.” 

Son also acknowledged challenges of pediatric literature, including differences in definitions of pediatric lupus, very few randomized controlled trials, and fewer pediatric studies in general, with fewer participants. Given these research gaps, the guideline panels included pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists, and the patient panel included several patients with childhood-onset disease.

Son also addressed differences in pediatric drug development. Dosing studies also do not always directly translate from adults to children because children have larger drug volume distribution and differences in drug clearance, and they may need different formulations, she said. Children tend to tolerate medications better than adults because they usually have fewer comorbidities, but the assessment of a drug’s safety must take its impact on growth and development into consideration.

During a press conference after the session where the guideline was presented, Linda Hiraki, MD, ScD, a clinician-scientist in rheumatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said the panel took into consideration that pediatric patients receive their diagnosis during a critical time of development, so considerations of medication risks include the fact that children “have much more life to live.”

 

Triple Therapy Recommended

As with adults, the pediatric LN guideline recommends a triple therapy approach: glucocorticoids plus mycophenolate mofetil and belimumab, in addition to the usual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine. But Son acknowledged limitations of applying the new guideline to children. For one, voclosporin has not been studied in or approved for pediatric patients, although there exists modest evidence for other calcineurin inhibitors, mainly tacrolimus, in children.

“The other important consideration is that the lower dose of prednisone that’s being offered by the guidelines of 40 mg per day as a starting dose has not been studied in pediatric lupus nephritis patients,” Son said. “However, I would offer that, given that we know that kids get higher doses and longer courses, it’s even more important to consider a lower dose to begin with in the setting of other immunosuppressants.”

 

Good Practice Statements for Pediatric LN

Son also reviewed three good practice statements for pediatric LN. First, “glucocorticoid regimens should use pediatric-appropriate doses for children, as reduction of human glucocorticoid dosing is critically important given the early age of pediatric lupus onset and attendant comorbidities,” she said.

That statement is based on both common sense and some literature, including awareness that children are more likely to receive higher doses of steroids and that children’s higher damage scores are driven in part by steroid-related toxicity, such as avascular necrosis and cataracts. In addition, glucocorticoids can have profound effects on body mass index, mood, and height attainment.

“This is during a period of emerging self-identity and struggles with appearance; steroids exacerbate that” as well as mood issues already associated with puberty, Son said.

The second good practice statement recommends that clinicians monitor patients “for delayed pubertal onset and decreased growth velocity that can result from disease activity and glucocorticoid treatment and consider referral to pediatric endocrinology if indicated.” The third states that “a structured, intentional transition from pediatric to adult rheumatology care is indicated to avoid poor outcomes during this vulnerable period.” 

During the press conference, Hiraki said that pediatric rheumatologists already recognize the need for discussions about transfer to adult care to begin very early, even years before patients are ready to transfer.

“The transition from being a pediatric patient to being an adult patient is very challenging for a number of reasons,” starting with loss of insurance coverage, added Bonnie Bermas, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. When adult rheumatologists take on these patients, they may not have had care for 2 or 3 years, she said. 

Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics in rheumatology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, and vice-chair of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Committee for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, was not involved in the guideline development process but reviewed the new guideline. 

“We appreciate that the ACR took care to involve pediatric rheumatologists, pediatric nephrologists, and patients with childhood-onset lupus in the development of the newest lupus nephritis treatment guidelines,” she said in an interview. She also noted, however, that “the dearth of pediatric-specific clinical trial data means that we continue to wonder when it is appropriate to extrapolate from adult data regarding the efficacy, safety, and dosing of certain medications, including steroids and voclosporin.” She also noted that voclosporin use can increase pill burden and therefore be difficult to use in pediatrics.

“Children, adolescents, and young adults are a unique population with unique challenges, including significant struggles with adherence to complex medication regimens,” she said. Sadun drew attention to two themes from the guideline that she found particularly applicable to management of pediatric LN.

“First, we must remain wary of the serious consequences of long-term, high-dose glucocorticoids, and we should continue to look towards steroid-sparing strategies that will reduce reliance on glucocorticoids,” Sadun said. “Second, we are likely to see better outcomes, including better renal response, when we take advantage of combination immunosuppression earlier in the disease course.”

Son, Bermas, and Sadun had no disclosures. Hiraki has consulted for Janssen. The guideline development did not involve outside funding.

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

WASHINGTON — When the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) released its updated guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) at its 2024 Annual Meeting, they included recommendations for managing pediatric LN for the first time. 

The pediatric recommendations use the same classification criteria, outcome measures, and treatments as in adults — including the first-line triple therapy recommendation — but there remain important differences between pediatric and adult LN, Mary Beth Son, MD, clinical chief of immunology and section chief of rheumatology at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, and an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, told attendees. 

“In general, kids and adolescents with lupus are sicker,” Son said. They are more likely to have renal manifestations and neuropsychiatric lupus at diagnosis, compared with adults. Further, “although the disease is the same, it’s happening to kids and adolescents who are undergoing critical periods of growth and development.” 

Medication risk profiles also shift for younger patients, Son noted. 

“Importantly, they’re at risk for higher cumulative dosing of both glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide,” Son said. “When we give an adolescent a course of cyclophosphamide, we have to be aware that this might be the first of a few courses over the course of the lifetime disease, and with increasing numbers of cyclophosphamide courses, you have increased risk for infertility and malignancy.” 

Son also acknowledged challenges of pediatric literature, including differences in definitions of pediatric lupus, very few randomized controlled trials, and fewer pediatric studies in general, with fewer participants. Given these research gaps, the guideline panels included pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists, and the patient panel included several patients with childhood-onset disease.

Son also addressed differences in pediatric drug development. Dosing studies also do not always directly translate from adults to children because children have larger drug volume distribution and differences in drug clearance, and they may need different formulations, she said. Children tend to tolerate medications better than adults because they usually have fewer comorbidities, but the assessment of a drug’s safety must take its impact on growth and development into consideration.

During a press conference after the session where the guideline was presented, Linda Hiraki, MD, ScD, a clinician-scientist in rheumatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said the panel took into consideration that pediatric patients receive their diagnosis during a critical time of development, so considerations of medication risks include the fact that children “have much more life to live.”

 

Triple Therapy Recommended

As with adults, the pediatric LN guideline recommends a triple therapy approach: glucocorticoids plus mycophenolate mofetil and belimumab, in addition to the usual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine. But Son acknowledged limitations of applying the new guideline to children. For one, voclosporin has not been studied in or approved for pediatric patients, although there exists modest evidence for other calcineurin inhibitors, mainly tacrolimus, in children.

“The other important consideration is that the lower dose of prednisone that’s being offered by the guidelines of 40 mg per day as a starting dose has not been studied in pediatric lupus nephritis patients,” Son said. “However, I would offer that, given that we know that kids get higher doses and longer courses, it’s even more important to consider a lower dose to begin with in the setting of other immunosuppressants.”

 

Good Practice Statements for Pediatric LN

Son also reviewed three good practice statements for pediatric LN. First, “glucocorticoid regimens should use pediatric-appropriate doses for children, as reduction of human glucocorticoid dosing is critically important given the early age of pediatric lupus onset and attendant comorbidities,” she said.

That statement is based on both common sense and some literature, including awareness that children are more likely to receive higher doses of steroids and that children’s higher damage scores are driven in part by steroid-related toxicity, such as avascular necrosis and cataracts. In addition, glucocorticoids can have profound effects on body mass index, mood, and height attainment.

“This is during a period of emerging self-identity and struggles with appearance; steroids exacerbate that” as well as mood issues already associated with puberty, Son said.

The second good practice statement recommends that clinicians monitor patients “for delayed pubertal onset and decreased growth velocity that can result from disease activity and glucocorticoid treatment and consider referral to pediatric endocrinology if indicated.” The third states that “a structured, intentional transition from pediatric to adult rheumatology care is indicated to avoid poor outcomes during this vulnerable period.” 

During the press conference, Hiraki said that pediatric rheumatologists already recognize the need for discussions about transfer to adult care to begin very early, even years before patients are ready to transfer.

“The transition from being a pediatric patient to being an adult patient is very challenging for a number of reasons,” starting with loss of insurance coverage, added Bonnie Bermas, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. When adult rheumatologists take on these patients, they may not have had care for 2 or 3 years, she said. 

Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics in rheumatology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, and vice-chair of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Committee for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, was not involved in the guideline development process but reviewed the new guideline. 

“We appreciate that the ACR took care to involve pediatric rheumatologists, pediatric nephrologists, and patients with childhood-onset lupus in the development of the newest lupus nephritis treatment guidelines,” she said in an interview. She also noted, however, that “the dearth of pediatric-specific clinical trial data means that we continue to wonder when it is appropriate to extrapolate from adult data regarding the efficacy, safety, and dosing of certain medications, including steroids and voclosporin.” She also noted that voclosporin use can increase pill burden and therefore be difficult to use in pediatrics.

“Children, adolescents, and young adults are a unique population with unique challenges, including significant struggles with adherence to complex medication regimens,” she said. Sadun drew attention to two themes from the guideline that she found particularly applicable to management of pediatric LN.

“First, we must remain wary of the serious consequences of long-term, high-dose glucocorticoids, and we should continue to look towards steroid-sparing strategies that will reduce reliance on glucocorticoids,” Sadun said. “Second, we are likely to see better outcomes, including better renal response, when we take advantage of combination immunosuppression earlier in the disease course.”

Son, Bermas, and Sadun had no disclosures. Hiraki has consulted for Janssen. The guideline development did not involve outside funding.

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

WASHINGTON — When the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) released its updated guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) at its 2024 Annual Meeting, they included recommendations for managing pediatric LN for the first time. 

The pediatric recommendations use the same classification criteria, outcome measures, and treatments as in adults — including the first-line triple therapy recommendation — but there remain important differences between pediatric and adult LN, Mary Beth Son, MD, clinical chief of immunology and section chief of rheumatology at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, and an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, told attendees. 

“In general, kids and adolescents with lupus are sicker,” Son said. They are more likely to have renal manifestations and neuropsychiatric lupus at diagnosis, compared with adults. Further, “although the disease is the same, it’s happening to kids and adolescents who are undergoing critical periods of growth and development.” 

Medication risk profiles also shift for younger patients, Son noted. 

“Importantly, they’re at risk for higher cumulative dosing of both glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide,” Son said. “When we give an adolescent a course of cyclophosphamide, we have to be aware that this might be the first of a few courses over the course of the lifetime disease, and with increasing numbers of cyclophosphamide courses, you have increased risk for infertility and malignancy.” 

Son also acknowledged challenges of pediatric literature, including differences in definitions of pediatric lupus, very few randomized controlled trials, and fewer pediatric studies in general, with fewer participants. Given these research gaps, the guideline panels included pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists, and the patient panel included several patients with childhood-onset disease.

Son also addressed differences in pediatric drug development. Dosing studies also do not always directly translate from adults to children because children have larger drug volume distribution and differences in drug clearance, and they may need different formulations, she said. Children tend to tolerate medications better than adults because they usually have fewer comorbidities, but the assessment of a drug’s safety must take its impact on growth and development into consideration.

During a press conference after the session where the guideline was presented, Linda Hiraki, MD, ScD, a clinician-scientist in rheumatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said the panel took into consideration that pediatric patients receive their diagnosis during a critical time of development, so considerations of medication risks include the fact that children “have much more life to live.”

 

Triple Therapy Recommended

As with adults, the pediatric LN guideline recommends a triple therapy approach: glucocorticoids plus mycophenolate mofetil and belimumab, in addition to the usual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine. But Son acknowledged limitations of applying the new guideline to children. For one, voclosporin has not been studied in or approved for pediatric patients, although there exists modest evidence for other calcineurin inhibitors, mainly tacrolimus, in children.

“The other important consideration is that the lower dose of prednisone that’s being offered by the guidelines of 40 mg per day as a starting dose has not been studied in pediatric lupus nephritis patients,” Son said. “However, I would offer that, given that we know that kids get higher doses and longer courses, it’s even more important to consider a lower dose to begin with in the setting of other immunosuppressants.”

 

Good Practice Statements for Pediatric LN

Son also reviewed three good practice statements for pediatric LN. First, “glucocorticoid regimens should use pediatric-appropriate doses for children, as reduction of human glucocorticoid dosing is critically important given the early age of pediatric lupus onset and attendant comorbidities,” she said.

That statement is based on both common sense and some literature, including awareness that children are more likely to receive higher doses of steroids and that children’s higher damage scores are driven in part by steroid-related toxicity, such as avascular necrosis and cataracts. In addition, glucocorticoids can have profound effects on body mass index, mood, and height attainment.

“This is during a period of emerging self-identity and struggles with appearance; steroids exacerbate that” as well as mood issues already associated with puberty, Son said.

The second good practice statement recommends that clinicians monitor patients “for delayed pubertal onset and decreased growth velocity that can result from disease activity and glucocorticoid treatment and consider referral to pediatric endocrinology if indicated.” The third states that “a structured, intentional transition from pediatric to adult rheumatology care is indicated to avoid poor outcomes during this vulnerable period.” 

During the press conference, Hiraki said that pediatric rheumatologists already recognize the need for discussions about transfer to adult care to begin very early, even years before patients are ready to transfer.

“The transition from being a pediatric patient to being an adult patient is very challenging for a number of reasons,” starting with loss of insurance coverage, added Bonnie Bermas, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. When adult rheumatologists take on these patients, they may not have had care for 2 or 3 years, she said. 

Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics in rheumatology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, and vice-chair of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Committee for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, was not involved in the guideline development process but reviewed the new guideline. 

“We appreciate that the ACR took care to involve pediatric rheumatologists, pediatric nephrologists, and patients with childhood-onset lupus in the development of the newest lupus nephritis treatment guidelines,” she said in an interview. She also noted, however, that “the dearth of pediatric-specific clinical trial data means that we continue to wonder when it is appropriate to extrapolate from adult data regarding the efficacy, safety, and dosing of certain medications, including steroids and voclosporin.” She also noted that voclosporin use can increase pill burden and therefore be difficult to use in pediatrics.

“Children, adolescents, and young adults are a unique population with unique challenges, including significant struggles with adherence to complex medication regimens,” she said. Sadun drew attention to two themes from the guideline that she found particularly applicable to management of pediatric LN.

“First, we must remain wary of the serious consequences of long-term, high-dose glucocorticoids, and we should continue to look towards steroid-sparing strategies that will reduce reliance on glucocorticoids,” Sadun said. “Second, we are likely to see better outcomes, including better renal response, when we take advantage of combination immunosuppression earlier in the disease course.”

Son, Bermas, and Sadun had no disclosures. Hiraki has consulted for Janssen. The guideline development did not involve outside funding.

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

The American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s Standards of Care — 2025 offer new guidance on broader use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) beyond weight loss, management of metabolic dysfunction-associated liver disease (MAFLD), plus a strong endorsement for drinking water and much more. 

The Standards of Care — 2025 were published December 9 as a supplement to Diabetes Care. The standards “incorporate the latest information from clinical trial data and knowledge of diabetes management into a comprehensive guidelines document that will assist physicians in managing patients with diabetes in their practices,” said Mandeep Bajaj, MBBS, ADA’s President, Medicine & Science.

In an interview, Bajaj highlighted some of the most important of the clinical updates in 2024, including the following: 

• Consideration of the use of continuous glucose monitoring devices in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who don’t use insulin. Medicare and many other payers currently only cover CGM for people who use insulin or are otherwise at risk for hypoglycemia. However, some CGMs are now available over the counter, Bajaj pointed out.
• Actions to be taken in the event of medication shortages. The ADA published guidance for this in the case of GLP-1 RAs on December 2. Essentially ADA advised substituting a different GLP-1 RA if possible. Nonapproved products aren’t recommended, but guidance is provided for people who choose to use them.
• Use of GLP-1 RAs for heart and kidney health. Recommendations were revised to explicitly advise on choice of pharmacotherapy for individuals with T2D, based on new data on those with established or high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease.
• Treatment of MAFLD with moderate or advanced liver fibrosis. A new recommendation for use of a thyroid hormone receptor–beta agonist is based on trial data for resmetirom. Moreover, Bajaj noted, “we’ve adopted the new nomenclature, which was previously NAFLD and NASH, and now is MAFLD and MASH [metabolic-associated steatohepatitis].”
• Advice to continue weight management therapy beyond achieving weight loss goals. This is based on a large amount of evidence that “stopping these therapies are associated with weight regain and increased cardiovascular risk,” Bajaj said, adding that this recommendation was made in collaboration with the Obesity Society.
• Antibody-based screening for presymptomatic T1D in family members of people with T2D and others who may be at risk. “Individuals who test autoantibody positive should be provided with or referred for counseling about the risk of developing diabetes, diabetes symptoms, and [diabetic ketoacidosis] prevention and should be given consideration for referral to a specialized center for further evaluation and/or consideration of a clinical trial or approved therapy to potentially delay development of clinical diabetes,” the document says.
• Screen for psychosocial issues. People with diabetes should be screened for concerns including diabetes distress, depression, anxiety, fear of hypoglycemia, and disordered eating behaviors. “People on insulin or sulfonylureas may have fear of hypoglycemia, but diabetes distress can happen to anyone with diabetes,” Bajaj pointed out. Caregivers and family members should be screened as well, the document advises.
• Drink water, not soda. In the nutrition section, a new recommendation strongly advises drinking water instead of nutritive or nonnutritive sweetened beverages. “This is an important recommendation. So, when patients ask what’s the best thing to drink, our answer is drink water rather than Coca Cola or Diet Coke,” Bajaj said. But, what about people with diabetes who can’t quit their diet soda habit? “We’ve said that the nonnutritive sweetener is preferred over sugar sweetener, provided it’s in moderation and short term ... but the best is water.”

Bajaj has received grant support from ADA. He had no further disclosures.

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

The American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s Standards of Care — 2025 offer new guidance on broader use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) beyond weight loss, management of metabolic dysfunction-associated liver disease (MAFLD), plus a strong endorsement for drinking water and much more. 

The Standards of Care — 2025 were published December 9 as a supplement to Diabetes Care. The standards “incorporate the latest information from clinical trial data and knowledge of diabetes management into a comprehensive guidelines document that will assist physicians in managing patients with diabetes in their practices,” said Mandeep Bajaj, MBBS, ADA’s President, Medicine & Science.

In an interview, Bajaj highlighted some of the most important of the clinical updates in 2024, including the following: 

• Consideration of the use of continuous glucose monitoring devices in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who don’t use insulin. Medicare and many other payers currently only cover CGM for people who use insulin or are otherwise at risk for hypoglycemia. However, some CGMs are now available over the counter, Bajaj pointed out.
• Actions to be taken in the event of medication shortages. The ADA published guidance for this in the case of GLP-1 RAs on December 2. Essentially ADA advised substituting a different GLP-1 RA if possible. Nonapproved products aren’t recommended, but guidance is provided for people who choose to use them.
• Use of GLP-1 RAs for heart and kidney health. Recommendations were revised to explicitly advise on choice of pharmacotherapy for individuals with T2D, based on new data on those with established or high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease.
• Treatment of MAFLD with moderate or advanced liver fibrosis. A new recommendation for use of a thyroid hormone receptor–beta agonist is based on trial data for resmetirom. Moreover, Bajaj noted, “we’ve adopted the new nomenclature, which was previously NAFLD and NASH, and now is MAFLD and MASH [metabolic-associated steatohepatitis].”
• Advice to continue weight management therapy beyond achieving weight loss goals. This is based on a large amount of evidence that “stopping these therapies are associated with weight regain and increased cardiovascular risk,” Bajaj said, adding that this recommendation was made in collaboration with the Obesity Society.
• Antibody-based screening for presymptomatic T1D in family members of people with T2D and others who may be at risk. “Individuals who test autoantibody positive should be provided with or referred for counseling about the risk of developing diabetes, diabetes symptoms, and [diabetic ketoacidosis] prevention and should be given consideration for referral to a specialized center for further evaluation and/or consideration of a clinical trial or approved therapy to potentially delay development of clinical diabetes,” the document says.
• Screen for psychosocial issues. People with diabetes should be screened for concerns including diabetes distress, depression, anxiety, fear of hypoglycemia, and disordered eating behaviors. “People on insulin or sulfonylureas may have fear of hypoglycemia, but diabetes distress can happen to anyone with diabetes,” Bajaj pointed out. Caregivers and family members should be screened as well, the document advises.
• Drink water, not soda. In the nutrition section, a new recommendation strongly advises drinking water instead of nutritive or nonnutritive sweetened beverages. “This is an important recommendation. So, when patients ask what’s the best thing to drink, our answer is drink water rather than Coca Cola or Diet Coke,” Bajaj said. But, what about people with diabetes who can’t quit their diet soda habit? “We’ve said that the nonnutritive sweetener is preferred over sugar sweetener, provided it’s in moderation and short term ... but the best is water.”

Bajaj has received grant support from ADA. He had no further disclosures.

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

The American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s Standards of Care — 2025 offer new guidance on broader use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) beyond weight loss, management of metabolic dysfunction-associated liver disease (MAFLD), plus a strong endorsement for drinking water and much more. 

The Standards of Care — 2025 were published December 9 as a supplement to Diabetes Care. The standards “incorporate the latest information from clinical trial data and knowledge of diabetes management into a comprehensive guidelines document that will assist physicians in managing patients with diabetes in their practices,” said Mandeep Bajaj, MBBS, ADA’s President, Medicine & Science.

In an interview, Bajaj highlighted some of the most important of the clinical updates in 2024, including the following: 

• Consideration of the use of continuous glucose monitoring devices in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who don’t use insulin. Medicare and many other payers currently only cover CGM for people who use insulin or are otherwise at risk for hypoglycemia. However, some CGMs are now available over the counter, Bajaj pointed out.
• Actions to be taken in the event of medication shortages. The ADA published guidance for this in the case of GLP-1 RAs on December 2. Essentially ADA advised substituting a different GLP-1 RA if possible. Nonapproved products aren’t recommended, but guidance is provided for people who choose to use them.
• Use of GLP-1 RAs for heart and kidney health. Recommendations were revised to explicitly advise on choice of pharmacotherapy for individuals with T2D, based on new data on those with established or high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease.
• Treatment of MAFLD with moderate or advanced liver fibrosis. A new recommendation for use of a thyroid hormone receptor–beta agonist is based on trial data for resmetirom. Moreover, Bajaj noted, “we’ve adopted the new nomenclature, which was previously NAFLD and NASH, and now is MAFLD and MASH [metabolic-associated steatohepatitis].”
• Advice to continue weight management therapy beyond achieving weight loss goals. This is based on a large amount of evidence that “stopping these therapies are associated with weight regain and increased cardiovascular risk,” Bajaj said, adding that this recommendation was made in collaboration with the Obesity Society.
• Antibody-based screening for presymptomatic T1D in family members of people with T2D and others who may be at risk. “Individuals who test autoantibody positive should be provided with or referred for counseling about the risk of developing diabetes, diabetes symptoms, and [diabetic ketoacidosis] prevention and should be given consideration for referral to a specialized center for further evaluation and/or consideration of a clinical trial or approved therapy to potentially delay development of clinical diabetes,” the document says.
• Screen for psychosocial issues. People with diabetes should be screened for concerns including diabetes distress, depression, anxiety, fear of hypoglycemia, and disordered eating behaviors. “People on insulin or sulfonylureas may have fear of hypoglycemia, but diabetes distress can happen to anyone with diabetes,” Bajaj pointed out. Caregivers and family members should be screened as well, the document advises.
• Drink water, not soda. In the nutrition section, a new recommendation strongly advises drinking water instead of nutritive or nonnutritive sweetened beverages. “This is an important recommendation. So, when patients ask what’s the best thing to drink, our answer is drink water rather than Coca Cola or Diet Coke,” Bajaj said. But, what about people with diabetes who can’t quit their diet soda habit? “We’ve said that the nonnutritive sweetener is preferred over sugar sweetener, provided it’s in moderation and short term ... but the best is water.”

Bajaj has received grant support from ADA. He had no further disclosures.

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

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted a draft updated statement on cervical cancer screening. The statement is open for public comment until January 13, 2025, on the task force’s website. 

Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) and most occur in women who have not been regularly screened or appropriately treated, the task force stressed.
 

New Screening Option

In 2024, there will be an estimated 13,820 new cases of cervical cancer and 4360 deaths.

“Evidence shows that screening saves lives, and all women aged 21-65 need to be screened,” task force member Esa Davis, MD, MPH, FAAFP, a professor of family and community medicine and associate vice president for community health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview. A new feature in the 2024 draft statement endorsing self-collection of cervical samples for HPV testing may facilitate broader screening. 

“We hope the new effective option of self-collecting will expand screening and allow even more women to get screened regularly,” Davis said. “Some may feel more comfortable collecting samples themselves, and the collection can be office-based or home-based, but it’s very important that it be done under the direction of a clinician.” 

In agreement is Diego Aviles, MD, an assistant professor and a gynecologic oncologist with UTHealth Houston. “Self-collection will absolutely expand screening. I think it’s an incredible advancement in medicine that patients are able to collect in the comfort of their own homes with no need to come into the office for an uncomfortable pelvic exam,” he said in an interview. “This empowers the patient and gives her a choice.”

As to concern about potential error, he added that while this is a concern on paper, “a lot of studies have shown that self-collection is just as effective doctor collection.” 

Largely consistent with the task force’s 2018 screening recommendations, the updated suggestions also align with those of other organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Davis said.

Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s chief of clinical practice and health equity and quality, stressed the importance of cervical cancer screening and said his organization will be reviewing the USPSTF recommendations. He urges ACOG members to consider them and offer their comments on the public-input platform.

Drawing on the latest evidence, the task force is also highlighting for the first time that stand-alone HPV screening gives women aged 30-65 years the best balance of benefits and harms when it comes to finding and preventing cervical cancer, while continuing to reinforce that Pap testing and co-testing are also effective screening options for these women. 

The current draft statement applies to cisgender women and those assigned female sex at birth, including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. The recommendations do not apply to women at increased risk of cervical cancer such as those with HIV infection, a compromised immune system, or a history of treatment for precancerous lesions or cervical cancer. 

Based on a review of evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF’s independent panel of national experts proposed the following:
 

Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):

• Ages 21-65 years: All women should get screened regularly for this preventable disease.
• Ages 21-29 years: All women in this age group should undergo a Pap test every 3 years but do not need HPV testing. “In this age group most HPV infections will go away on their own because young women have strong immune systems. Older women are likely to have HPV that lasts longer and so they need testing for the virus,” Davis said.
• Ages 30-65 years: As noted, HPV screening gives women in this age category the best balance of benefits and harms in terms of preventing and finding cervical cancer. Pap testing or co-testing (Pap tests and HPV tests) are also effective screening options for this population. Ideally, these women should have an HPV test every 5 years or, alternatively, a Pap test every 3 years, or a combined HPV and Pap test every 5 years (co-testing).

Recommendations Against Screening (No Benefit or Benefit Outweighed by Harms — Grade D evidence):

• Women aged less than 21 years: Screening is not necessary.
• Other women not needing screening: Nor is screening necessary for those of any age who have had a total hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and those aged > 65 years who have had regular screenings with normal results. That means normal results from their last three Pap tests or their last two HPV tests, completed in the past 10 years, with at least one of the tests done in the past 5 years.
• Women aged 65 or more: These women should continue screening only if they have not been screened regularly or have had abnormal results in the past decade such as a high-grade precancerous lesion (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer.

Davis noted that none of the current recommendations are likely to be controversial or to spark pushback. “But,” said Aviles, “any time I see recent change in medicine, there’s always a little bit of pushback and it may take some time for everyone to be comfortable with the self-collection option. The recommendations still give doctors the grace to use the screening test they feel comfortable with, but I think eventually everyone will get on board with self-collection.”

As for the future, he added, “Over the next few years we’ll have to look at women who are on immune-weakening medications like Skyrizi [risankizumab] for skin conditions like psoriasis. These are commonly used in young people and can increase the risk of cervical cancer. I haven’t seen a lot of conversation about this, but patients should be aware of this risk and recommendations for this group should be different than for the general population.”

The USPSTF also noted a need to assess the magnitude of the incremental benefit and harms of screening and the interval of multiple rounds of HPV-primary screening in HPV-vaccinated cohorts in US populations.

Davis, Aviles, and Zahn and had no relevant competing interests to disclose.
 

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

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted a draft updated statement on cervical cancer screening. The statement is open for public comment until January 13, 2025, on the task force’s website. 

Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) and most occur in women who have not been regularly screened or appropriately treated, the task force stressed.
 

New Screening Option

In 2024, there will be an estimated 13,820 new cases of cervical cancer and 4360 deaths.

“Evidence shows that screening saves lives, and all women aged 21-65 need to be screened,” task force member Esa Davis, MD, MPH, FAAFP, a professor of family and community medicine and associate vice president for community health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview. A new feature in the 2024 draft statement endorsing self-collection of cervical samples for HPV testing may facilitate broader screening. 

“We hope the new effective option of self-collecting will expand screening and allow even more women to get screened regularly,” Davis said. “Some may feel more comfortable collecting samples themselves, and the collection can be office-based or home-based, but it’s very important that it be done under the direction of a clinician.” 

In agreement is Diego Aviles, MD, an assistant professor and a gynecologic oncologist with UTHealth Houston. “Self-collection will absolutely expand screening. I think it’s an incredible advancement in medicine that patients are able to collect in the comfort of their own homes with no need to come into the office for an uncomfortable pelvic exam,” he said in an interview. “This empowers the patient and gives her a choice.”

As to concern about potential error, he added that while this is a concern on paper, “a lot of studies have shown that self-collection is just as effective doctor collection.” 

Largely consistent with the task force’s 2018 screening recommendations, the updated suggestions also align with those of other organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Davis said.

Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s chief of clinical practice and health equity and quality, stressed the importance of cervical cancer screening and said his organization will be reviewing the USPSTF recommendations. He urges ACOG members to consider them and offer their comments on the public-input platform.

Drawing on the latest evidence, the task force is also highlighting for the first time that stand-alone HPV screening gives women aged 30-65 years the best balance of benefits and harms when it comes to finding and preventing cervical cancer, while continuing to reinforce that Pap testing and co-testing are also effective screening options for these women. 

The current draft statement applies to cisgender women and those assigned female sex at birth, including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. The recommendations do not apply to women at increased risk of cervical cancer such as those with HIV infection, a compromised immune system, or a history of treatment for precancerous lesions or cervical cancer. 

Based on a review of evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF’s independent panel of national experts proposed the following:
 

Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):

• Ages 21-65 years: All women should get screened regularly for this preventable disease.
• Ages 21-29 years: All women in this age group should undergo a Pap test every 3 years but do not need HPV testing. “In this age group most HPV infections will go away on their own because young women have strong immune systems. Older women are likely to have HPV that lasts longer and so they need testing for the virus,” Davis said.
• Ages 30-65 years: As noted, HPV screening gives women in this age category the best balance of benefits and harms in terms of preventing and finding cervical cancer. Pap testing or co-testing (Pap tests and HPV tests) are also effective screening options for this population. Ideally, these women should have an HPV test every 5 years or, alternatively, a Pap test every 3 years, or a combined HPV and Pap test every 5 years (co-testing).

Recommendations Against Screening (No Benefit or Benefit Outweighed by Harms — Grade D evidence):

• Women aged less than 21 years: Screening is not necessary.
• Other women not needing screening: Nor is screening necessary for those of any age who have had a total hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and those aged > 65 years who have had regular screenings with normal results. That means normal results from their last three Pap tests or their last two HPV tests, completed in the past 10 years, with at least one of the tests done in the past 5 years.
• Women aged 65 or more: These women should continue screening only if they have not been screened regularly or have had abnormal results in the past decade such as a high-grade precancerous lesion (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer.

Davis noted that none of the current recommendations are likely to be controversial or to spark pushback. “But,” said Aviles, “any time I see recent change in medicine, there’s always a little bit of pushback and it may take some time for everyone to be comfortable with the self-collection option. The recommendations still give doctors the grace to use the screening test they feel comfortable with, but I think eventually everyone will get on board with self-collection.”

As for the future, he added, “Over the next few years we’ll have to look at women who are on immune-weakening medications like Skyrizi [risankizumab] for skin conditions like psoriasis. These are commonly used in young people and can increase the risk of cervical cancer. I haven’t seen a lot of conversation about this, but patients should be aware of this risk and recommendations for this group should be different than for the general population.”

The USPSTF also noted a need to assess the magnitude of the incremental benefit and harms of screening and the interval of multiple rounds of HPV-primary screening in HPV-vaccinated cohorts in US populations.

Davis, Aviles, and Zahn and had no relevant competing interests to disclose.
 

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

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted a draft updated statement on cervical cancer screening. The statement is open for public comment until January 13, 2025, on the task force’s website. 

Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) and most occur in women who have not been regularly screened or appropriately treated, the task force stressed.
 

New Screening Option

In 2024, there will be an estimated 13,820 new cases of cervical cancer and 4360 deaths.

“Evidence shows that screening saves lives, and all women aged 21-65 need to be screened,” task force member Esa Davis, MD, MPH, FAAFP, a professor of family and community medicine and associate vice president for community health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview. A new feature in the 2024 draft statement endorsing self-collection of cervical samples for HPV testing may facilitate broader screening. 

“We hope the new effective option of self-collecting will expand screening and allow even more women to get screened regularly,” Davis said. “Some may feel more comfortable collecting samples themselves, and the collection can be office-based or home-based, but it’s very important that it be done under the direction of a clinician.” 

In agreement is Diego Aviles, MD, an assistant professor and a gynecologic oncologist with UTHealth Houston. “Self-collection will absolutely expand screening. I think it’s an incredible advancement in medicine that patients are able to collect in the comfort of their own homes with no need to come into the office for an uncomfortable pelvic exam,” he said in an interview. “This empowers the patient and gives her a choice.”

As to concern about potential error, he added that while this is a concern on paper, “a lot of studies have shown that self-collection is just as effective doctor collection.” 

Largely consistent with the task force’s 2018 screening recommendations, the updated suggestions also align with those of other organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Davis said.

Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s chief of clinical practice and health equity and quality, stressed the importance of cervical cancer screening and said his organization will be reviewing the USPSTF recommendations. He urges ACOG members to consider them and offer their comments on the public-input platform.

Drawing on the latest evidence, the task force is also highlighting for the first time that stand-alone HPV screening gives women aged 30-65 years the best balance of benefits and harms when it comes to finding and preventing cervical cancer, while continuing to reinforce that Pap testing and co-testing are also effective screening options for these women. 

The current draft statement applies to cisgender women and those assigned female sex at birth, including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. The recommendations do not apply to women at increased risk of cervical cancer such as those with HIV infection, a compromised immune system, or a history of treatment for precancerous lesions or cervical cancer. 

Based on a review of evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF’s independent panel of national experts proposed the following:
 

Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):

• Ages 21-65 years: All women should get screened regularly for this preventable disease.
• Ages 21-29 years: All women in this age group should undergo a Pap test every 3 years but do not need HPV testing. “In this age group most HPV infections will go away on their own because young women have strong immune systems. Older women are likely to have HPV that lasts longer and so they need testing for the virus,” Davis said.
• Ages 30-65 years: As noted, HPV screening gives women in this age category the best balance of benefits and harms in terms of preventing and finding cervical cancer. Pap testing or co-testing (Pap tests and HPV tests) are also effective screening options for this population. Ideally, these women should have an HPV test every 5 years or, alternatively, a Pap test every 3 years, or a combined HPV and Pap test every 5 years (co-testing).

Recommendations Against Screening (No Benefit or Benefit Outweighed by Harms — Grade D evidence):

• Women aged less than 21 years: Screening is not necessary.
• Other women not needing screening: Nor is screening necessary for those of any age who have had a total hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and those aged > 65 years who have had regular screenings with normal results. That means normal results from their last three Pap tests or their last two HPV tests, completed in the past 10 years, with at least one of the tests done in the past 5 years.
• Women aged 65 or more: These women should continue screening only if they have not been screened regularly or have had abnormal results in the past decade such as a high-grade precancerous lesion (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer.

Davis noted that none of the current recommendations are likely to be controversial or to spark pushback. “But,” said Aviles, “any time I see recent change in medicine, there’s always a little bit of pushback and it may take some time for everyone to be comfortable with the self-collection option. The recommendations still give doctors the grace to use the screening test they feel comfortable with, but I think eventually everyone will get on board with self-collection.”

As for the future, he added, “Over the next few years we’ll have to look at women who are on immune-weakening medications like Skyrizi [risankizumab] for skin conditions like psoriasis. These are commonly used in young people and can increase the risk of cervical cancer. I haven’t seen a lot of conversation about this, but patients should be aware of this risk and recommendations for this group should be different than for the general population.”

The USPSTF also noted a need to assess the magnitude of the incremental benefit and harms of screening and the interval of multiple rounds of HPV-primary screening in HPV-vaccinated cohorts in US populations.

Davis, Aviles, and Zahn and had no relevant competing interests to disclose.
 

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

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — New draft guidance on the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) for diagnosis, monitoring, and prognosis of psoriatic arthritis was presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting. The new recommendations, intended to update 2012 guidance on rheumatologic use of MSUS, will go through another round of expert committee voting before being finalized and published.

“Even in the last 12 years, we’ve seen substantive advances, and there’s been significant improvements in musculoskeletal ultrasound technology,” Veena K. Ranganath, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of their Rheumatology Fellowship Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Training Program, told attendees. She noted that more than 30,000 articles on MSUS and arthritis have been published since the 2012 guidance. “We’ve seen mastery in teaching and really a wide distribution of this education to the next generation of rheumatologists, and this has led to significant increases in the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound in clinical practices.” 

She also noted there have been significant improvements in therapeutic agents and strategies in psoriatic arthritis medications and that differences in today’s patients compared with those of a decade ago have influenced clinical questions related to the use of MSUS in rheumatology. 

To develop the guidelines, a committee identified key domains and relevant clinical questions for ultrasonography using the PICO model (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). A review of the literature published since 1993 in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database provided the evidence base, and a committee of 11 experts voted on the strength of the evidence for 22 statements. They rejected two that lacked consensus, and another round of voting will occur before the guidance is published. 

Michael Stein, MD, assistant professor of medicine in rheumatology at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, who was not involved in the guidance development, said he hopes and expects this new guidance will help persuade more clinicians to recognize the value of using MSUS in their practice. 

“Number one, it’ll highlight the huge amount of data that exist that support using this technology for managing these groups of patients, among others, and I think it’ll also highlight the enormous number of questions that still exist that will hopefully be answered in the future, promoting new research,” Stein told this news organization. 

“I do think it does allow people who are not comfortable with technology to adopt technology in a very gradual way and make it less threatening,” Stein added. 

“Ultrasound is becoming part of the landscape, and so increasingly, we’re trying to promote it as being part of the standard of care, or at least an adjunct to care. I commend the committee for doing all this amazing work.” 

 

Predicting and Diagnosing Early Psoriatic Arthritis

Catherine J. Bakewell, MD, a rheumatologist at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah, reviewed the committee’s statements, starting with strong consensus that MSUS can help with diagnosing early psoriatic arthritis. Evidence has shown that patients with psoriasis who have subclinical synovitis, enthesitis, and other features have gone on to develop psoriatic arthritis, and researchers have documented the transition with ultrasonography. 

“We can use it to enhance our CASPAR classification criteria” by using ultrasound to change how clinicians apply the classification criteria, Bakewell said. “For example, in order to go through those classification criteria, a patient has to have confirmed inflammatory articular disease, either the joint synthesis or spine, and ultrasound can help clarify that state for us.” 

She also noted the potential for ultrasonography to help as a screening tool because studies have suggested that dermatologists’ use of handheld ultrasound transducers can help in screening appropriate patients to refer to rheumatologists. 

Patients with psoriasis being evaluated for a potential early psoriatic arthritis diagnosis should undergo MSUS of the bilateral quadriceps tendon, patellar ligament, Achilles tendon, and plantar fascia entheses at a minimum, per moderate consensus. 

“This truly is just designed to be the highest bang for your buck. This is designed for clinicians in practice,” Bakewell said. She noted criticism about the exclusion of upper extremities — something that will be discussed in the future published paper — but one reason that was excluded is because common findings have occurred in healthy individuals in some areas. 

Moderate consensus also supported reliance on entheseal features — including hypoechogenicity, thickening, Doppler signal, bone erosions, enthesophytes/calcifications, and bursal enlargement — to support a diagnosis. Interpretation of entheseal changes in patients with psoriasis should take into account characteristics such as age, body mass index (BMI), and biomechanical stress.

“There are numerous articles already existing pointing out that people who are over the age of 50 with a BMI over 30 kg/m2 or who have higher levels of biomechanical stress will score more highly on endocytoscoring systems, even in the absence of an underlying disorder,” Bakewell said. Among the mitigating strategies proposed in the literature are to have at least three positive sites to qualify for an indication or to look at the specificity of each elementary lesion. “Whatever mitigating strategy the clinician chooses to use, they need to bear in mind some of these features are not exclusive to spondyloarthritis,” she said. “It has to be taken in the clinical context.” 

Scanning the hand, wrist, foot, and relevant symptomatic joints with MSUS to diagnose early psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis received strong consensus. Intracapsular findings of synovitis and erosions may help support an early diagnosis in patients with psoriasis. “These are not obviously specific to psoriatic arthritis but support the diagnosis” with moderate consensus, Bakewell said. “The more specific findings are these extracapsular findings — which did attain a strong level of consensus — which are enthesitis, tenosynovitis, and dactylitis, all supporting that diagnosis of early psoriatic arthritis.” 

For patients with psoriatic arthritis, the cutoff for defining a positive joint received moderate consensus for grayscale (GS) of at least 2 or at least 1 with power Doppler (PD) of at least 1. 

Strong consensus supported confirming the presence of dactylitis in patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis through a combination of features including tenosynovitis, subcutaneous edema, soft tissue thickening, synovitis, paratenonitis, and pulley thickening. 

“I will also note that enthesitis is missing from this definition of dactylitis,” Bakewell said. “It is, however, a feature that is detectable with those higher-frequency transducers, but this is a relatively early area of research and did not make it into this guidance statement.” 

Moderate consensus supported determination of an increased risk of radiographic erosions in patients with a dactylitis PD score of at least 1. 

“We know as far back as 2005, Brockbank et al taught us that the dactylitic digit is associated with radiographic erosion in that particular digit,” Bakewell said. “Flash forward all the way to 2021: Dubash et al published the paper, ‘Dactylitis is an indicator of a more severe phenotype independently associated with greater swollen joint counts, C-reactive protein, ultrasound synovitis, and erosive damage,’ showing us that this is more than just that particular digit. It is a more severe phenotype, and very minimal Doppler signal, just 1+, is associated with erosive damage.”

 

Progression of Psoriatic Arthritis and Shared Decision-Making

Strong consensus existed for all statements related to progression of psoriatic arthritis and the role of MSUS in shared decision-making. The first is that synovitis and enthesitis in MSUS can predict radiographic progression and worsening of patient-related outcomes. Second, sonographic features — including increased Doppler signal in synovitis, enthesitis, and tenosynovitis — and presence of bone erosions and dactylitis can help inform decisions regarding therapy escalation.

“This is the first treatment management–specific statement we have made, but we feel this to be justified because each of these ultrasonographic features is associated with overall inflammatory burden and worse outcomes, be it health assessment questionnaires, disability index, or patient-reported outcomes to harder endpoints, such as radiographic erosions or relapse of clinical remission,” Bakewell said. 

Finally, MSUS can help inform patients of their disease activity to assist in shared decision-making regarding escalation or de-escalation of therapy.

“We’ve all had this in our practices. You’ve had the patient in front of you who is very inflamed, and they say, ‘Doctor, can’t I please use doTERRA oils? Do I really need to go on one of these toxic drugs? I’ve read the package insert,’” Bakewell said. “Aside from having that conversation about the relative risk–benefit of any individual medication that you recommend, it’s helpful to put the ultrasound transducer on the patient, show them the fire of the Doppler, show them the erosion, show them the damage that is being done. It comes to life for them, especially if they’re not suffering that much with pain or stiffness.” 

Bakewell also addressed patients at the other end of the pain spectrum who are suffering more. “You’ve also probably had the patient with psoriatic arthritis and fibromyalgia who comes in and tells you, ‘Doctor, my psoriatic arthritis has been terrible. I’m flaring. I need more immune-suppressing medication,’” she said. “Their exam looks pretty good, and it’s helpful to put that transducer on them and show them the absence of Doppler signal, show them that you’re taking them very seriously. You didn’t just squeeze them and say they’re fine, but you looked more deeply. You looked underneath the skin, and that helps with that patient–provider understanding and communication. I use this every day.” 

 

Clarifying Disease State and Defining Remission

As with patients with psoriasis undergoing evaluation, there was strong consensus for interpreting entheseal changes in psoriatic arthritis in the context of patient characteristics such as age, BMI, and biomechanical stress.

There was moderate consensus for confirming psoriatic arthritis flare with MSUS. Bakewell noted that many have seen in their practices how physical exams can be misleading, such as when a patient appears clinically normal but has ongoing synovitis, or on the flip side, the patient has a swollen joint but nothing is lighting up with Doppler on the ultrasound.

All of the statements on MSUS for remission received moderate consensus. These included defining MSUS remission as a PD score of 0 in entheses and synovial tissues and defining ultrasonographic remission as a total PD ultrasound score of 0, summing all analyzed joints and entheses, at a single given time point.

When using MSUS to evaluate for remission, it’s reasonable to screen the lower-extremity entheses, wrists, metacarpophalangeal joints, interphalangeal hand joints, metatarsophalangeal joints, and relevant symptomatic joints. The inflammatory features to evaluate to confirm ultrasound-defined remission include PD enthesitis, GS and PD synovitis, tenosynovitis, and dactylitis. Finally, for those in remission, subclinical inflammation detected by MSUS likely predicts a higher rate of flare. 

During the discussion, Bakewell reiterated that MSUS should be regarded as a tool for patient subsets who can benefit from its use, rather than being used routinely across large patient groups without a clear purpose. “It’s used to answer a question,” she said. “If you’re going to demonstrate the efficacy of a tool, you have to use it appropriately, aka when there’s a question. We don’t need to ultrasound every patient every visit.”

No external funding for the development of the guidance was noted. Ranganath has reported receiving research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Mallinckrodt. Bakewell has reported receiving speaking/consulting fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron/Genzyme, and Pfizer. Stein had no disclosures. 

 

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

WASHINGTON — New draft guidance on the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) for diagnosis, monitoring, and prognosis of psoriatic arthritis was presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting. The new recommendations, intended to update 2012 guidance on rheumatologic use of MSUS, will go through another round of expert committee voting before being finalized and published.

“Even in the last 12 years, we’ve seen substantive advances, and there’s been significant improvements in musculoskeletal ultrasound technology,” Veena K. Ranganath, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of their Rheumatology Fellowship Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Training Program, told attendees. She noted that more than 30,000 articles on MSUS and arthritis have been published since the 2012 guidance. “We’ve seen mastery in teaching and really a wide distribution of this education to the next generation of rheumatologists, and this has led to significant increases in the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound in clinical practices.” 

She also noted there have been significant improvements in therapeutic agents and strategies in psoriatic arthritis medications and that differences in today’s patients compared with those of a decade ago have influenced clinical questions related to the use of MSUS in rheumatology. 

To develop the guidelines, a committee identified key domains and relevant clinical questions for ultrasonography using the PICO model (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). A review of the literature published since 1993 in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database provided the evidence base, and a committee of 11 experts voted on the strength of the evidence for 22 statements. They rejected two that lacked consensus, and another round of voting will occur before the guidance is published. 

Michael Stein, MD, assistant professor of medicine in rheumatology at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, who was not involved in the guidance development, said he hopes and expects this new guidance will help persuade more clinicians to recognize the value of using MSUS in their practice. 

“Number one, it’ll highlight the huge amount of data that exist that support using this technology for managing these groups of patients, among others, and I think it’ll also highlight the enormous number of questions that still exist that will hopefully be answered in the future, promoting new research,” Stein told this news organization. 

“I do think it does allow people who are not comfortable with technology to adopt technology in a very gradual way and make it less threatening,” Stein added. 

“Ultrasound is becoming part of the landscape, and so increasingly, we’re trying to promote it as being part of the standard of care, or at least an adjunct to care. I commend the committee for doing all this amazing work.” 

 

Predicting and Diagnosing Early Psoriatic Arthritis

Catherine J. Bakewell, MD, a rheumatologist at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah, reviewed the committee’s statements, starting with strong consensus that MSUS can help with diagnosing early psoriatic arthritis. Evidence has shown that patients with psoriasis who have subclinical synovitis, enthesitis, and other features have gone on to develop psoriatic arthritis, and researchers have documented the transition with ultrasonography. 

“We can use it to enhance our CASPAR classification criteria” by using ultrasound to change how clinicians apply the classification criteria, Bakewell said. “For example, in order to go through those classification criteria, a patient has to have confirmed inflammatory articular disease, either the joint synthesis or spine, and ultrasound can help clarify that state for us.” 

She also noted the potential for ultrasonography to help as a screening tool because studies have suggested that dermatologists’ use of handheld ultrasound transducers can help in screening appropriate patients to refer to rheumatologists. 

Patients with psoriasis being evaluated for a potential early psoriatic arthritis diagnosis should undergo MSUS of the bilateral quadriceps tendon, patellar ligament, Achilles tendon, and plantar fascia entheses at a minimum, per moderate consensus. 

“This truly is just designed to be the highest bang for your buck. This is designed for clinicians in practice,” Bakewell said. She noted criticism about the exclusion of upper extremities — something that will be discussed in the future published paper — but one reason that was excluded is because common findings have occurred in healthy individuals in some areas. 

Moderate consensus also supported reliance on entheseal features — including hypoechogenicity, thickening, Doppler signal, bone erosions, enthesophytes/calcifications, and bursal enlargement — to support a diagnosis. Interpretation of entheseal changes in patients with psoriasis should take into account characteristics such as age, body mass index (BMI), and biomechanical stress.

“There are numerous articles already existing pointing out that people who are over the age of 50 with a BMI over 30 kg/m2 or who have higher levels of biomechanical stress will score more highly on endocytoscoring systems, even in the absence of an underlying disorder,” Bakewell said. Among the mitigating strategies proposed in the literature are to have at least three positive sites to qualify for an indication or to look at the specificity of each elementary lesion. “Whatever mitigating strategy the clinician chooses to use, they need to bear in mind some of these features are not exclusive to spondyloarthritis,” she said. “It has to be taken in the clinical context.” 

Scanning the hand, wrist, foot, and relevant symptomatic joints with MSUS to diagnose early psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis received strong consensus. Intracapsular findings of synovitis and erosions may help support an early diagnosis in patients with psoriasis. “These are not obviously specific to psoriatic arthritis but support the diagnosis” with moderate consensus, Bakewell said. “The more specific findings are these extracapsular findings — which did attain a strong level of consensus — which are enthesitis, tenosynovitis, and dactylitis, all supporting that diagnosis of early psoriatic arthritis.” 

For patients with psoriatic arthritis, the cutoff for defining a positive joint received moderate consensus for grayscale (GS) of at least 2 or at least 1 with power Doppler (PD) of at least 1. 

Strong consensus supported confirming the presence of dactylitis in patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis through a combination of features including tenosynovitis, subcutaneous edema, soft tissue thickening, synovitis, paratenonitis, and pulley thickening. 

“I will also note that enthesitis is missing from this definition of dactylitis,” Bakewell said. “It is, however, a feature that is detectable with those higher-frequency transducers, but this is a relatively early area of research and did not make it into this guidance statement.” 

Moderate consensus supported determination of an increased risk of radiographic erosions in patients with a dactylitis PD score of at least 1. 

“We know as far back as 2005, Brockbank et al taught us that the dactylitic digit is associated with radiographic erosion in that particular digit,” Bakewell said. “Flash forward all the way to 2021: Dubash et al published the paper, ‘Dactylitis is an indicator of a more severe phenotype independently associated with greater swollen joint counts, C-reactive protein, ultrasound synovitis, and erosive damage,’ showing us that this is more than just that particular digit. It is a more severe phenotype, and very minimal Doppler signal, just 1+, is associated with erosive damage.”

 

Progression of Psoriatic Arthritis and Shared Decision-Making

Strong consensus existed for all statements related to progression of psoriatic arthritis and the role of MSUS in shared decision-making. The first is that synovitis and enthesitis in MSUS can predict radiographic progression and worsening of patient-related outcomes. Second, sonographic features — including increased Doppler signal in synovitis, enthesitis, and tenosynovitis — and presence of bone erosions and dactylitis can help inform decisions regarding therapy escalation.

“This is the first treatment management–specific statement we have made, but we feel this to be justified because each of these ultrasonographic features is associated with overall inflammatory burden and worse outcomes, be it health assessment questionnaires, disability index, or patient-reported outcomes to harder endpoints, such as radiographic erosions or relapse of clinical remission,” Bakewell said. 

Finally, MSUS can help inform patients of their disease activity to assist in shared decision-making regarding escalation or de-escalation of therapy.

“We’ve all had this in our practices. You’ve had the patient in front of you who is very inflamed, and they say, ‘Doctor, can’t I please use doTERRA oils? Do I really need to go on one of these toxic drugs? I’ve read the package insert,’” Bakewell said. “Aside from having that conversation about the relative risk–benefit of any individual medication that you recommend, it’s helpful to put the ultrasound transducer on the patient, show them the fire of the Doppler, show them the erosion, show them the damage that is being done. It comes to life for them, especially if they’re not suffering that much with pain or stiffness.” 

Bakewell also addressed patients at the other end of the pain spectrum who are suffering more. “You’ve also probably had the patient with psoriatic arthritis and fibromyalgia who comes in and tells you, ‘Doctor, my psoriatic arthritis has been terrible. I’m flaring. I need more immune-suppressing medication,’” she said. “Their exam looks pretty good, and it’s helpful to put that transducer on them and show them the absence of Doppler signal, show them that you’re taking them very seriously. You didn’t just squeeze them and say they’re fine, but you looked more deeply. You looked underneath the skin, and that helps with that patient–provider understanding and communication. I use this every day.” 

 

Clarifying Disease State and Defining Remission

As with patients with psoriasis undergoing evaluation, there was strong consensus for interpreting entheseal changes in psoriatic arthritis in the context of patient characteristics such as age, BMI, and biomechanical stress.

There was moderate consensus for confirming psoriatic arthritis flare with MSUS. Bakewell noted that many have seen in their practices how physical exams can be misleading, such as when a patient appears clinically normal but has ongoing synovitis, or on the flip side, the patient has a swollen joint but nothing is lighting up with Doppler on the ultrasound.

All of the statements on MSUS for remission received moderate consensus. These included defining MSUS remission as a PD score of 0 in entheses and synovial tissues and defining ultrasonographic remission as a total PD ultrasound score of 0, summing all analyzed joints and entheses, at a single given time point.

When using MSUS to evaluate for remission, it’s reasonable to screen the lower-extremity entheses, wrists, metacarpophalangeal joints, interphalangeal hand joints, metatarsophalangeal joints, and relevant symptomatic joints. The inflammatory features to evaluate to confirm ultrasound-defined remission include PD enthesitis, GS and PD synovitis, tenosynovitis, and dactylitis. Finally, for those in remission, subclinical inflammation detected by MSUS likely predicts a higher rate of flare. 

During the discussion, Bakewell reiterated that MSUS should be regarded as a tool for patient subsets who can benefit from its use, rather than being used routinely across large patient groups without a clear purpose. “It’s used to answer a question,” she said. “If you’re going to demonstrate the efficacy of a tool, you have to use it appropriately, aka when there’s a question. We don’t need to ultrasound every patient every visit.”

No external funding for the development of the guidance was noted. Ranganath has reported receiving research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Mallinckrodt. Bakewell has reported receiving speaking/consulting fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron/Genzyme, and Pfizer. Stein had no disclosures. 

 

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

WASHINGTON — New draft guidance on the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) for diagnosis, monitoring, and prognosis of psoriatic arthritis was presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting. The new recommendations, intended to update 2012 guidance on rheumatologic use of MSUS, will go through another round of expert committee voting before being finalized and published.

“Even in the last 12 years, we’ve seen substantive advances, and there’s been significant improvements in musculoskeletal ultrasound technology,” Veena K. Ranganath, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of their Rheumatology Fellowship Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Training Program, told attendees. She noted that more than 30,000 articles on MSUS and arthritis have been published since the 2012 guidance. “We’ve seen mastery in teaching and really a wide distribution of this education to the next generation of rheumatologists, and this has led to significant increases in the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound in clinical practices.” 

She also noted there have been significant improvements in therapeutic agents and strategies in psoriatic arthritis medications and that differences in today’s patients compared with those of a decade ago have influenced clinical questions related to the use of MSUS in rheumatology. 

To develop the guidelines, a committee identified key domains and relevant clinical questions for ultrasonography using the PICO model (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). A review of the literature published since 1993 in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database provided the evidence base, and a committee of 11 experts voted on the strength of the evidence for 22 statements. They rejected two that lacked consensus, and another round of voting will occur before the guidance is published. 

Michael Stein, MD, assistant professor of medicine in rheumatology at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, who was not involved in the guidance development, said he hopes and expects this new guidance will help persuade more clinicians to recognize the value of using MSUS in their practice. 

“Number one, it’ll highlight the huge amount of data that exist that support using this technology for managing these groups of patients, among others, and I think it’ll also highlight the enormous number of questions that still exist that will hopefully be answered in the future, promoting new research,” Stein told this news organization. 

“I do think it does allow people who are not comfortable with technology to adopt technology in a very gradual way and make it less threatening,” Stein added. 

“Ultrasound is becoming part of the landscape, and so increasingly, we’re trying to promote it as being part of the standard of care, or at least an adjunct to care. I commend the committee for doing all this amazing work.” 

 

Predicting and Diagnosing Early Psoriatic Arthritis

Catherine J. Bakewell, MD, a rheumatologist at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah, reviewed the committee’s statements, starting with strong consensus that MSUS can help with diagnosing early psoriatic arthritis. Evidence has shown that patients with psoriasis who have subclinical synovitis, enthesitis, and other features have gone on to develop psoriatic arthritis, and researchers have documented the transition with ultrasonography. 

“We can use it to enhance our CASPAR classification criteria” by using ultrasound to change how clinicians apply the classification criteria, Bakewell said. “For example, in order to go through those classification criteria, a patient has to have confirmed inflammatory articular disease, either the joint synthesis or spine, and ultrasound can help clarify that state for us.” 

She also noted the potential for ultrasonography to help as a screening tool because studies have suggested that dermatologists’ use of handheld ultrasound transducers can help in screening appropriate patients to refer to rheumatologists. 

Patients with psoriasis being evaluated for a potential early psoriatic arthritis diagnosis should undergo MSUS of the bilateral quadriceps tendon, patellar ligament, Achilles tendon, and plantar fascia entheses at a minimum, per moderate consensus. 

“This truly is just designed to be the highest bang for your buck. This is designed for clinicians in practice,” Bakewell said. She noted criticism about the exclusion of upper extremities — something that will be discussed in the future published paper — but one reason that was excluded is because common findings have occurred in healthy individuals in some areas. 

Moderate consensus also supported reliance on entheseal features — including hypoechogenicity, thickening, Doppler signal, bone erosions, enthesophytes/calcifications, and bursal enlargement — to support a diagnosis. Interpretation of entheseal changes in patients with psoriasis should take into account characteristics such as age, body mass index (BMI), and biomechanical stress.

“There are numerous articles already existing pointing out that people who are over the age of 50 with a BMI over 30 kg/m2 or who have higher levels of biomechanical stress will score more highly on endocytoscoring systems, even in the absence of an underlying disorder,” Bakewell said. Among the mitigating strategies proposed in the literature are to have at least three positive sites to qualify for an indication or to look at the specificity of each elementary lesion. “Whatever mitigating strategy the clinician chooses to use, they need to bear in mind some of these features are not exclusive to spondyloarthritis,” she said. “It has to be taken in the clinical context.” 

Scanning the hand, wrist, foot, and relevant symptomatic joints with MSUS to diagnose early psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis received strong consensus. Intracapsular findings of synovitis and erosions may help support an early diagnosis in patients with psoriasis. “These are not obviously specific to psoriatic arthritis but support the diagnosis” with moderate consensus, Bakewell said. “The more specific findings are these extracapsular findings — which did attain a strong level of consensus — which are enthesitis, tenosynovitis, and dactylitis, all supporting that diagnosis of early psoriatic arthritis.” 

For patients with psoriatic arthritis, the cutoff for defining a positive joint received moderate consensus for grayscale (GS) of at least 2 or at least 1 with power Doppler (PD) of at least 1. 

Strong consensus supported confirming the presence of dactylitis in patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis through a combination of features including tenosynovitis, subcutaneous edema, soft tissue thickening, synovitis, paratenonitis, and pulley thickening. 

“I will also note that enthesitis is missing from this definition of dactylitis,” Bakewell said. “It is, however, a feature that is detectable with those higher-frequency transducers, but this is a relatively early area of research and did not make it into this guidance statement.” 

Moderate consensus supported determination of an increased risk of radiographic erosions in patients with a dactylitis PD score of at least 1. 

“We know as far back as 2005, Brockbank et al taught us that the dactylitic digit is associated with radiographic erosion in that particular digit,” Bakewell said. “Flash forward all the way to 2021: Dubash et al published the paper, ‘Dactylitis is an indicator of a more severe phenotype independently associated with greater swollen joint counts, C-reactive protein, ultrasound synovitis, and erosive damage,’ showing us that this is more than just that particular digit. It is a more severe phenotype, and very minimal Doppler signal, just 1+, is associated with erosive damage.”

 

Progression of Psoriatic Arthritis and Shared Decision-Making

Strong consensus existed for all statements related to progression of psoriatic arthritis and the role of MSUS in shared decision-making. The first is that synovitis and enthesitis in MSUS can predict radiographic progression and worsening of patient-related outcomes. Second, sonographic features — including increased Doppler signal in synovitis, enthesitis, and tenosynovitis — and presence of bone erosions and dactylitis can help inform decisions regarding therapy escalation.

“This is the first treatment management–specific statement we have made, but we feel this to be justified because each of these ultrasonographic features is associated with overall inflammatory burden and worse outcomes, be it health assessment questionnaires, disability index, or patient-reported outcomes to harder endpoints, such as radiographic erosions or relapse of clinical remission,” Bakewell said. 

Finally, MSUS can help inform patients of their disease activity to assist in shared decision-making regarding escalation or de-escalation of therapy.

“We’ve all had this in our practices. You’ve had the patient in front of you who is very inflamed, and they say, ‘Doctor, can’t I please use doTERRA oils? Do I really need to go on one of these toxic drugs? I’ve read the package insert,’” Bakewell said. “Aside from having that conversation about the relative risk–benefit of any individual medication that you recommend, it’s helpful to put the ultrasound transducer on the patient, show them the fire of the Doppler, show them the erosion, show them the damage that is being done. It comes to life for them, especially if they’re not suffering that much with pain or stiffness.” 

Bakewell also addressed patients at the other end of the pain spectrum who are suffering more. “You’ve also probably had the patient with psoriatic arthritis and fibromyalgia who comes in and tells you, ‘Doctor, my psoriatic arthritis has been terrible. I’m flaring. I need more immune-suppressing medication,’” she said. “Their exam looks pretty good, and it’s helpful to put that transducer on them and show them the absence of Doppler signal, show them that you’re taking them very seriously. You didn’t just squeeze them and say they’re fine, but you looked more deeply. You looked underneath the skin, and that helps with that patient–provider understanding and communication. I use this every day.” 

 

Clarifying Disease State and Defining Remission

As with patients with psoriasis undergoing evaluation, there was strong consensus for interpreting entheseal changes in psoriatic arthritis in the context of patient characteristics such as age, BMI, and biomechanical stress.

There was moderate consensus for confirming psoriatic arthritis flare with MSUS. Bakewell noted that many have seen in their practices how physical exams can be misleading, such as when a patient appears clinically normal but has ongoing synovitis, or on the flip side, the patient has a swollen joint but nothing is lighting up with Doppler on the ultrasound.

All of the statements on MSUS for remission received moderate consensus. These included defining MSUS remission as a PD score of 0 in entheses and synovial tissues and defining ultrasonographic remission as a total PD ultrasound score of 0, summing all analyzed joints and entheses, at a single given time point.

When using MSUS to evaluate for remission, it’s reasonable to screen the lower-extremity entheses, wrists, metacarpophalangeal joints, interphalangeal hand joints, metatarsophalangeal joints, and relevant symptomatic joints. The inflammatory features to evaluate to confirm ultrasound-defined remission include PD enthesitis, GS and PD synovitis, tenosynovitis, and dactylitis. Finally, for those in remission, subclinical inflammation detected by MSUS likely predicts a higher rate of flare. 

During the discussion, Bakewell reiterated that MSUS should be regarded as a tool for patient subsets who can benefit from its use, rather than being used routinely across large patient groups without a clear purpose. “It’s used to answer a question,” she said. “If you’re going to demonstrate the efficacy of a tool, you have to use it appropriately, aka when there’s a question. We don’t need to ultrasound every patient every visit.”

No external funding for the development of the guidance was noted. Ranganath has reported receiving research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Mallinckrodt. Bakewell has reported receiving speaking/consulting fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron/Genzyme, and Pfizer. Stein had no disclosures. 

 

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

WASHINGTON — After more than a decade, the American College of Rheumatology has developed new draft guidance for the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) to help with diagnosis, monitoring, and prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Though not yet finalized, the statements that came out of a first round of committee voting were unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The committee was charged with updating the 2012 recommendations on using MSUS in rheumatology clinical practice, explained Veena K. Ranganath, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of their Rheumatology Fellowship Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Training Program. 

More than 30,000 articles on MSUS and any arthritis have been published since 2012, and there have been significant advances and improvements in technology as well as more widespread education and use in rheumatologic clinical practice, Ranganath said. 

“There’s also been advancements in therapeutic agents and therapeutic strategies in use of these medications in rheumatoid arthritis,” Ranganath said. “We all know that the patient of today is very different than the patient of 10 years ago or 20 years ago, so this really impacts the clinical questions we ask of how we need to incorporate musculoskeletal ultrasound into our rheumatology clinical practice.” 

The process of developing the guidance involved determining key domains and then relevant clinical questions for ultrasonography using the PICO model (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). Evidence came from a review of relevant literature published since 1993 in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database. A panel of 11 experts voted on the quality of the evidence as being moderate or strong for 33 statements, rejecting three that had no consensus. The committee will hold another round of voting before the guidance is published.

Erin Arnold, MD, a rheumatologist at Arnold Arthritis & Rheumatology in Skokie, Illinois, said in an interview she believes the new guidance will be “tremendously helpful,” particularly in getting “everybody on the same page” with similar practices and helping enhance diagnosis and response to therapy. 

Having used MSUS for over 20 years, Arnold said watching it evolve and seeing “this type of manuscript being put together as a resource for physicians who are taking care of inflammatory arthritis is exciting.”

“There’s not a single way we really can assess disease activity in our patients, and so having a composite of things that you’re looking at really enhances our ability to understand people’s pain,” Arnold said. 

“When you have a patient in front of you that is in so much pain but doesn’t have any active inflammation, it’s hard to want to further put them at risk with more medication,” she said. “It’s so meaningful to be able to have a conversation about ... what are other complementary interventions? How are they sleeping? How are they eating? What are they taking as far as supplements? What are they doing to decrease that kind of fear and fight-or-flight response that often can drive some of our pain?” 

 

Use of MSUS for Diagnosis Confirmation and Treatment Decisions

Gurjit S. Kaeley, MBBS, professor of medicine, division chief of rheumatology and clinical immunology, and medical director of the Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Program at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, reviewed the final statements for MSUS use with RA.

He said there was strong consensus that adding MSUS to clinical examination can aid diagnosis of early RA in patients with suspected RA, particularly with detection of synovitis, tenosynovitis, and erosions. There was moderate consensus that MSUS detection of tenosynovitis could predict later development of RA. 

“Furthermore, erosions do have a predictive prognostic value in telling us that these patients need more attention and more urgent attention to getting urgent care with disease-modifying medications,” Kaeley said. “Ultrasound scanning for bone erosions on a few target joints was found to be feasible in literature and provides information not available with clinical examination. Furthermore, ultrasound is more sensitive than plain radiography for the detection of erosions.” 

Moderate consensus supported a cutoff of at least 2 mm for erosions when using MSUS for diagnostic purposes. 

Strong consensus supported using MSUS of the wrist, second and third metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints, and second and third interphalangeal (PIP) joints to aid early RA diagnosis, with moderate consensus that cutoffs of least 2 grayscale (GS) or at least 1 GS with at least 1 power Doppler (PD) at the joint level supports both an RA diagnosis and, in patients already diagnosed with RA, a positive joint.

“Grayscale-only definitions were included since equipment may not have sensitive Doppler,” Kaeley said.

Strong consensus supported scanning only a reduced set of representative or symptomatic joints to monitor disease activity with MSUS. 

 

Inflammatory Signs, Disease Progression, and Flares

There was also strong consensus for using MSUS in patients with established RA and comorbidities to help distinguish between RA-related inflammation versus inflammation from other conditions, such as gout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease, or versus non–RA-related pain, such as that from fibromyalgia. 

Patients with fibromyalgia, for example, “tend to have more steroid exposure and a high prevalence of biologic use because the composite disease scores tend to overestimate disease activity, especially when compared to ultrasound assessment,” Kaeley said.

Moderate consensus supported using MSUS in patients with established RA to objectively evaluate inflammation so as to eliminate age-related bias.

While MSUS signs of synovitis had only moderate consensus to be associated with radiographic progression and decline in patient-reported outcomes for patients with early RA, consensus was strong for this association in patients with established RA.

In terms of predicting disease progression with MSUS monitoring of RA disease activity, moderate consensus supported scanning the wrists and MCPs and PIPs of the hands and using the dorsal view. Kaeley emphasized that ultrasound is a clinical tool that should be used to answer a clinical question, so the sonographer or clinician needs to provide guidance on the areas to be scanned. 

Multiple standardized scoring systems exist for predicting RA disease progression, but there is no consensus on which is the most effective, and there is only moderate consensus about the validity of using dichotomous scoring with an established cutoff for a positive joint.

The combination of MSUS with clinical examination appears to be more effective at confirming RA flares than using only clinical examination, and in certain patients with established RA, MSUS may provide insights into subclinical disease activity to help maintain remission and/or potentially guide treatment decisions, “especially when coming across de-escalation therapy decisions,” Kaeley said.

Despite the negative results of treat-to-target trials that tested MSUS as a routine tool in all patients, the committee achieved strong consensus on the potential value of using MSUS in early RA to clarify clinical status and/or help achieve low disease activity or remission in certain patient populations, “such as those with patient/provider discordance or difficult physical examinations,” Kaeley said. 

 

Therapy Response, Remission, and Shared Decision-Making

Moderate consensus supported acknowledgment that using MSUS to assess response to therapy could be affected by obesity and that MSUS can distinguish active synovitis symptoms from other pain sources in difficult-to-treat RA.

In patients with established RA, the feasibility of scanning the wrists, MCPs, PIPs, and relevant symptomatic joints for remission evaluation received moderate consensus. Meanwhile, strong consensus supported the idea that increasing the number of joints scanned with MSUS could increase the certainty of the patient having achieved remission, though the guidance acknowledges that “this must be balanced against the feasibility within the context of clinical care.” 

For confirming RA remission via MSUS, strong consensus supported using GS and PD synovitis and tenosynovitis findings. But consensus was moderate for using the combination of no PD signal and minimal synovial hypertrophy to define ultrasonographic remission and for the use of MSUS detection of subclinical inflammation to predict higher flare rates for those in clinical remission.

The committee moderately agreed that MSUS can enhance patient engagement and understanding of their disease to support personalized treatment decisions, such as adjusting disease-modifying antirheumatic drug regimens.

Finally, the committee broadly agreed that “the integration of musculoskeletal ultrasound presents significant advantages in shared decision-making between healthcare providers and patients,” Kaeley said. “Ultrasound, especially with Doppler technique, provides critical insights into disease activity and structural changes not always apparent during standard examination.” 

Arnold said she particularly appreciated that the committee, rather than prescribing a specific exam, opted to be more generalizable so that people use the guidance in the context that makes the most sense for them clinically. She said it’s an incredible tool, without excluding the importance of a patient’s labs and physical examination. 

“It’s helped us make diagnoses in patients who were difficult to diagnose. It’s helped us to understand response to therapy or no response to therapy,” she said. “It makes me question all the studies that I see done on medications where they’re not looking at some type of advanced imaging.” 

No external funding was noted for the development of the guidance. Ranganath has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Mallinckrodt. Kaeley has reported receiving research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead/Galapagos, Janssen, and Novartis. Arnold had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — After more than a decade, the American College of Rheumatology has developed new draft guidance for the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) to help with diagnosis, monitoring, and prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Though not yet finalized, the statements that came out of a first round of committee voting were unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The committee was charged with updating the 2012 recommendations on using MSUS in rheumatology clinical practice, explained Veena K. Ranganath, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of their Rheumatology Fellowship Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Training Program. 

More than 30,000 articles on MSUS and any arthritis have been published since 2012, and there have been significant advances and improvements in technology as well as more widespread education and use in rheumatologic clinical practice, Ranganath said. 

“There’s also been advancements in therapeutic agents and therapeutic strategies in use of these medications in rheumatoid arthritis,” Ranganath said. “We all know that the patient of today is very different than the patient of 10 years ago or 20 years ago, so this really impacts the clinical questions we ask of how we need to incorporate musculoskeletal ultrasound into our rheumatology clinical practice.” 

The process of developing the guidance involved determining key domains and then relevant clinical questions for ultrasonography using the PICO model (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). Evidence came from a review of relevant literature published since 1993 in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database. A panel of 11 experts voted on the quality of the evidence as being moderate or strong for 33 statements, rejecting three that had no consensus. The committee will hold another round of voting before the guidance is published.

Erin Arnold, MD, a rheumatologist at Arnold Arthritis & Rheumatology in Skokie, Illinois, said in an interview she believes the new guidance will be “tremendously helpful,” particularly in getting “everybody on the same page” with similar practices and helping enhance diagnosis and response to therapy. 

Having used MSUS for over 20 years, Arnold said watching it evolve and seeing “this type of manuscript being put together as a resource for physicians who are taking care of inflammatory arthritis is exciting.”

“There’s not a single way we really can assess disease activity in our patients, and so having a composite of things that you’re looking at really enhances our ability to understand people’s pain,” Arnold said. 

“When you have a patient in front of you that is in so much pain but doesn’t have any active inflammation, it’s hard to want to further put them at risk with more medication,” she said. “It’s so meaningful to be able to have a conversation about ... what are other complementary interventions? How are they sleeping? How are they eating? What are they taking as far as supplements? What are they doing to decrease that kind of fear and fight-or-flight response that often can drive some of our pain?” 

 

Use of MSUS for Diagnosis Confirmation and Treatment Decisions

Gurjit S. Kaeley, MBBS, professor of medicine, division chief of rheumatology and clinical immunology, and medical director of the Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Program at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, reviewed the final statements for MSUS use with RA.

He said there was strong consensus that adding MSUS to clinical examination can aid diagnosis of early RA in patients with suspected RA, particularly with detection of synovitis, tenosynovitis, and erosions. There was moderate consensus that MSUS detection of tenosynovitis could predict later development of RA. 

“Furthermore, erosions do have a predictive prognostic value in telling us that these patients need more attention and more urgent attention to getting urgent care with disease-modifying medications,” Kaeley said. “Ultrasound scanning for bone erosions on a few target joints was found to be feasible in literature and provides information not available with clinical examination. Furthermore, ultrasound is more sensitive than plain radiography for the detection of erosions.” 

Moderate consensus supported a cutoff of at least 2 mm for erosions when using MSUS for diagnostic purposes. 

Strong consensus supported using MSUS of the wrist, second and third metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints, and second and third interphalangeal (PIP) joints to aid early RA diagnosis, with moderate consensus that cutoffs of least 2 grayscale (GS) or at least 1 GS with at least 1 power Doppler (PD) at the joint level supports both an RA diagnosis and, in patients already diagnosed with RA, a positive joint.

“Grayscale-only definitions were included since equipment may not have sensitive Doppler,” Kaeley said.

Strong consensus supported scanning only a reduced set of representative or symptomatic joints to monitor disease activity with MSUS. 

 

Inflammatory Signs, Disease Progression, and Flares

There was also strong consensus for using MSUS in patients with established RA and comorbidities to help distinguish between RA-related inflammation versus inflammation from other conditions, such as gout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease, or versus non–RA-related pain, such as that from fibromyalgia. 

Patients with fibromyalgia, for example, “tend to have more steroid exposure and a high prevalence of biologic use because the composite disease scores tend to overestimate disease activity, especially when compared to ultrasound assessment,” Kaeley said.

Moderate consensus supported using MSUS in patients with established RA to objectively evaluate inflammation so as to eliminate age-related bias.

While MSUS signs of synovitis had only moderate consensus to be associated with radiographic progression and decline in patient-reported outcomes for patients with early RA, consensus was strong for this association in patients with established RA.

In terms of predicting disease progression with MSUS monitoring of RA disease activity, moderate consensus supported scanning the wrists and MCPs and PIPs of the hands and using the dorsal view. Kaeley emphasized that ultrasound is a clinical tool that should be used to answer a clinical question, so the sonographer or clinician needs to provide guidance on the areas to be scanned. 

Multiple standardized scoring systems exist for predicting RA disease progression, but there is no consensus on which is the most effective, and there is only moderate consensus about the validity of using dichotomous scoring with an established cutoff for a positive joint.

The combination of MSUS with clinical examination appears to be more effective at confirming RA flares than using only clinical examination, and in certain patients with established RA, MSUS may provide insights into subclinical disease activity to help maintain remission and/or potentially guide treatment decisions, “especially when coming across de-escalation therapy decisions,” Kaeley said.

Despite the negative results of treat-to-target trials that tested MSUS as a routine tool in all patients, the committee achieved strong consensus on the potential value of using MSUS in early RA to clarify clinical status and/or help achieve low disease activity or remission in certain patient populations, “such as those with patient/provider discordance or difficult physical examinations,” Kaeley said. 

 

Therapy Response, Remission, and Shared Decision-Making

Moderate consensus supported acknowledgment that using MSUS to assess response to therapy could be affected by obesity and that MSUS can distinguish active synovitis symptoms from other pain sources in difficult-to-treat RA.

In patients with established RA, the feasibility of scanning the wrists, MCPs, PIPs, and relevant symptomatic joints for remission evaluation received moderate consensus. Meanwhile, strong consensus supported the idea that increasing the number of joints scanned with MSUS could increase the certainty of the patient having achieved remission, though the guidance acknowledges that “this must be balanced against the feasibility within the context of clinical care.” 

For confirming RA remission via MSUS, strong consensus supported using GS and PD synovitis and tenosynovitis findings. But consensus was moderate for using the combination of no PD signal and minimal synovial hypertrophy to define ultrasonographic remission and for the use of MSUS detection of subclinical inflammation to predict higher flare rates for those in clinical remission.

The committee moderately agreed that MSUS can enhance patient engagement and understanding of their disease to support personalized treatment decisions, such as adjusting disease-modifying antirheumatic drug regimens.

Finally, the committee broadly agreed that “the integration of musculoskeletal ultrasound presents significant advantages in shared decision-making between healthcare providers and patients,” Kaeley said. “Ultrasound, especially with Doppler technique, provides critical insights into disease activity and structural changes not always apparent during standard examination.” 

Arnold said she particularly appreciated that the committee, rather than prescribing a specific exam, opted to be more generalizable so that people use the guidance in the context that makes the most sense for them clinically. She said it’s an incredible tool, without excluding the importance of a patient’s labs and physical examination. 

“It’s helped us make diagnoses in patients who were difficult to diagnose. It’s helped us to understand response to therapy or no response to therapy,” she said. “It makes me question all the studies that I see done on medications where they’re not looking at some type of advanced imaging.” 

No external funding was noted for the development of the guidance. Ranganath has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Mallinckrodt. Kaeley has reported receiving research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead/Galapagos, Janssen, and Novartis. Arnold had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — After more than a decade, the American College of Rheumatology has developed new draft guidance for the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) to help with diagnosis, monitoring, and prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Though not yet finalized, the statements that came out of a first round of committee voting were unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The committee was charged with updating the 2012 recommendations on using MSUS in rheumatology clinical practice, explained Veena K. Ranganath, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of their Rheumatology Fellowship Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Training Program. 

More than 30,000 articles on MSUS and any arthritis have been published since 2012, and there have been significant advances and improvements in technology as well as more widespread education and use in rheumatologic clinical practice, Ranganath said. 

“There’s also been advancements in therapeutic agents and therapeutic strategies in use of these medications in rheumatoid arthritis,” Ranganath said. “We all know that the patient of today is very different than the patient of 10 years ago or 20 years ago, so this really impacts the clinical questions we ask of how we need to incorporate musculoskeletal ultrasound into our rheumatology clinical practice.” 

The process of developing the guidance involved determining key domains and then relevant clinical questions for ultrasonography using the PICO model (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). Evidence came from a review of relevant literature published since 1993 in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database. A panel of 11 experts voted on the quality of the evidence as being moderate or strong for 33 statements, rejecting three that had no consensus. The committee will hold another round of voting before the guidance is published.

Erin Arnold, MD, a rheumatologist at Arnold Arthritis & Rheumatology in Skokie, Illinois, said in an interview she believes the new guidance will be “tremendously helpful,” particularly in getting “everybody on the same page” with similar practices and helping enhance diagnosis and response to therapy. 

Having used MSUS for over 20 years, Arnold said watching it evolve and seeing “this type of manuscript being put together as a resource for physicians who are taking care of inflammatory arthritis is exciting.”

“There’s not a single way we really can assess disease activity in our patients, and so having a composite of things that you’re looking at really enhances our ability to understand people’s pain,” Arnold said. 

“When you have a patient in front of you that is in so much pain but doesn’t have any active inflammation, it’s hard to want to further put them at risk with more medication,” she said. “It’s so meaningful to be able to have a conversation about ... what are other complementary interventions? How are they sleeping? How are they eating? What are they taking as far as supplements? What are they doing to decrease that kind of fear and fight-or-flight response that often can drive some of our pain?” 

 

Use of MSUS for Diagnosis Confirmation and Treatment Decisions

Gurjit S. Kaeley, MBBS, professor of medicine, division chief of rheumatology and clinical immunology, and medical director of the Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Program at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, reviewed the final statements for MSUS use with RA.

He said there was strong consensus that adding MSUS to clinical examination can aid diagnosis of early RA in patients with suspected RA, particularly with detection of synovitis, tenosynovitis, and erosions. There was moderate consensus that MSUS detection of tenosynovitis could predict later development of RA. 

“Furthermore, erosions do have a predictive prognostic value in telling us that these patients need more attention and more urgent attention to getting urgent care with disease-modifying medications,” Kaeley said. “Ultrasound scanning for bone erosions on a few target joints was found to be feasible in literature and provides information not available with clinical examination. Furthermore, ultrasound is more sensitive than plain radiography for the detection of erosions.” 

Moderate consensus supported a cutoff of at least 2 mm for erosions when using MSUS for diagnostic purposes. 

Strong consensus supported using MSUS of the wrist, second and third metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints, and second and third interphalangeal (PIP) joints to aid early RA diagnosis, with moderate consensus that cutoffs of least 2 grayscale (GS) or at least 1 GS with at least 1 power Doppler (PD) at the joint level supports both an RA diagnosis and, in patients already diagnosed with RA, a positive joint.

“Grayscale-only definitions were included since equipment may not have sensitive Doppler,” Kaeley said.

Strong consensus supported scanning only a reduced set of representative or symptomatic joints to monitor disease activity with MSUS. 

 

Inflammatory Signs, Disease Progression, and Flares

There was also strong consensus for using MSUS in patients with established RA and comorbidities to help distinguish between RA-related inflammation versus inflammation from other conditions, such as gout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease, or versus non–RA-related pain, such as that from fibromyalgia. 

Patients with fibromyalgia, for example, “tend to have more steroid exposure and a high prevalence of biologic use because the composite disease scores tend to overestimate disease activity, especially when compared to ultrasound assessment,” Kaeley said.

Moderate consensus supported using MSUS in patients with established RA to objectively evaluate inflammation so as to eliminate age-related bias.

While MSUS signs of synovitis had only moderate consensus to be associated with radiographic progression and decline in patient-reported outcomes for patients with early RA, consensus was strong for this association in patients with established RA.

In terms of predicting disease progression with MSUS monitoring of RA disease activity, moderate consensus supported scanning the wrists and MCPs and PIPs of the hands and using the dorsal view. Kaeley emphasized that ultrasound is a clinical tool that should be used to answer a clinical question, so the sonographer or clinician needs to provide guidance on the areas to be scanned. 

Multiple standardized scoring systems exist for predicting RA disease progression, but there is no consensus on which is the most effective, and there is only moderate consensus about the validity of using dichotomous scoring with an established cutoff for a positive joint.

The combination of MSUS with clinical examination appears to be more effective at confirming RA flares than using only clinical examination, and in certain patients with established RA, MSUS may provide insights into subclinical disease activity to help maintain remission and/or potentially guide treatment decisions, “especially when coming across de-escalation therapy decisions,” Kaeley said.

Despite the negative results of treat-to-target trials that tested MSUS as a routine tool in all patients, the committee achieved strong consensus on the potential value of using MSUS in early RA to clarify clinical status and/or help achieve low disease activity or remission in certain patient populations, “such as those with patient/provider discordance or difficult physical examinations,” Kaeley said. 

 

Therapy Response, Remission, and Shared Decision-Making

Moderate consensus supported acknowledgment that using MSUS to assess response to therapy could be affected by obesity and that MSUS can distinguish active synovitis symptoms from other pain sources in difficult-to-treat RA.

In patients with established RA, the feasibility of scanning the wrists, MCPs, PIPs, and relevant symptomatic joints for remission evaluation received moderate consensus. Meanwhile, strong consensus supported the idea that increasing the number of joints scanned with MSUS could increase the certainty of the patient having achieved remission, though the guidance acknowledges that “this must be balanced against the feasibility within the context of clinical care.” 

For confirming RA remission via MSUS, strong consensus supported using GS and PD synovitis and tenosynovitis findings. But consensus was moderate for using the combination of no PD signal and minimal synovial hypertrophy to define ultrasonographic remission and for the use of MSUS detection of subclinical inflammation to predict higher flare rates for those in clinical remission.

The committee moderately agreed that MSUS can enhance patient engagement and understanding of their disease to support personalized treatment decisions, such as adjusting disease-modifying antirheumatic drug regimens.

Finally, the committee broadly agreed that “the integration of musculoskeletal ultrasound presents significant advantages in shared decision-making between healthcare providers and patients,” Kaeley said. “Ultrasound, especially with Doppler technique, provides critical insights into disease activity and structural changes not always apparent during standard examination.” 

Arnold said she particularly appreciated that the committee, rather than prescribing a specific exam, opted to be more generalizable so that people use the guidance in the context that makes the most sense for them clinically. She said it’s an incredible tool, without excluding the importance of a patient’s labs and physical examination. 

“It’s helped us make diagnoses in patients who were difficult to diagnose. It’s helped us to understand response to therapy or no response to therapy,” she said. “It makes me question all the studies that I see done on medications where they’re not looking at some type of advanced imaging.” 

No external funding was noted for the development of the guidance. Ranganath has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Mallinckrodt. Kaeley has reported receiving research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead/Galapagos, Janssen, and Novartis. Arnold had no disclosures.

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

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) caused a stir when they recommended in their latest atrial fibrillation (AF) management guideline that gender no longer be included in the decision to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy.

The move aims to level the playing field between men and women and follows a more nuanced understanding of stroke risk in patients with AF, said experts. It also acknowledges the lack of evidence in people receiving cross-sex hormone therapy.

In any case, the guidelines, developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and published by the European Heart Journal on August 30, simply follow 2023’s US recommendations, they added.

 

One Size Does Not Fit All

So, what to the ESC guidelines actually say?

They underline that, if left untreated, the risk for ischemic stroke is increased fivefold in patients with AF, and the “default approach should therefore be to provide oral anticoagulation to all eligible AF patients, except those at low risk for incident stroke or thromboembolism.”

However, the authors note that there is a lack of strong evidence on how to apply the current risk scores to help inform that decision in real-world patients.

Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, Professor of Cardiology at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England, and senior author of the ESC guidelines, said in an interview that “the available scores have a relatively poor ability to accurately predict which patients will have a stroke or thromboembolic event.”

Instead, he said “a much better approach is for healthcare professionals to look at each patient’s individual risk factors, using the risk scores to identify those patients that might not benefit from oral anticoagulant therapy.”

For these guidelines, the authors therefore wanted to “move away from a one-size-fits-all” approach, Kotecha said, and instead ensure that more patients can benefit from the new range of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are easier to take and with much lower chance of side effects or major bleeding.

To achieve this, they separated their clinical recommendations from any particular risk score, and instead focused on the practicalities of implementation.

 

Risk Modifier Vs Risk Factor

To explain their decision the authors highlight that “the most popular risk score” is the CHA2DS2–VASc, which gives a point for female sex, alongside factors such as congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, and a sliding scale of points for increasing age.

Kotecha pointed out the score was developed before the DOACs were available and may not account for how risk factors have changed in recent decades.

The result is that CHA2DS2–VASc gives the same number of points to an individual with heart failure or prior transient ischemic attack as to a woman aged less than 65 years, “but the magnitude of increased risk is not the same,” Usha Beth Tedrow, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

As far back as 2018, it was known that “female sex is a risk modifier, rather than a risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation,” noted Jose Joglar, MD, lead author of the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation said in an interview.

A Danish national registry study involving 239,671 AF patients treated between 1997 and 2015, nearly half of whom were women, showed that, at a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 0, the “risk of stroke between men and women is absolutely the same,” he said.

“It is not until after a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 2 that the curves start to separate,” Joglar, Program Director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, continued, “but by then you have already made the decision to anticoagulate.”

More recently, Kotecha and colleagues conducted a population cohort study of the electronic healthcare records of UK primary care patients treated between 2005 and 2020, and identified 78,852 with AF; more than a third were women.

Their analysis, published on September 1, showed that women had a lower adjusted rate of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or arterial thromboembolism, driven by a reduced mortality rate.

“Removal of gender from clinical risk scoring could simplify the approach to which patients with AF should be offered oral anticoagulation,” Kotecha and colleagues concluded.

Joglar clarified that “women are at increased risk for stroke than men” overall, but by the time that risk “becomes manifest, other risk factors have come into play, and they have already met the criteria for anticoagulation.”

The authors of the latest ESC guideline therefore concluded that the “inclusion of gender complicates clinical practice both for healthcare professionals and patients.” Their solution was to remove the question of gender for decisions over initiating oral anticoagulant therapy in clinical practice altogether.

This includes individuals who identify as transgender or are undergoing sex hormone therapy, as all the experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to know if that affects stroke risk.

Instead, guidelines state that the drugs are “recommended in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 2 or more and should be considered in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 1, following a patient-centered and shared care approach.”

“Dropping the gender part of the risk score is not really a substantial change” from previous ESC or other guidelines, as different points were required in the past to recommend anticoagulants for women and men, Kotecha said, adding that “making the approach easier for clinicians may avoid penalizing women as well as nonbinary and transgender patients.”

Anne B. Curtis, MD, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo in New York, agreed.

Putting aside the question of female sex, she said that there are not a lot of people under the age of 65 years with “absolutely no risk factors,” and so, “if the only reason you would anticoagulate” someone of that age is because they are a woman that “doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

The ESC guidelines are “trying to say, ‘look at the other risk factors, and if anything is there, go ahead and anticoagulate,” Curtis said in an interview.

“It’s actually a very thoughtful decision,” Tedrow said, and not “intended to discount risk in women.” Rather, it’s a statement that acknowledges the problem of recommending anticoagulation therapy in women “for whom it is not appropriate.”

Joglar pointed out that that recommendation, although not characterized in the same way, was in fact included in the 2023 US guidelines.

“We wanted to use a more nuanced approach,” he said, and move away from using CHA2DS2–VASc as the prime determinant of whether to start oral anticoagulation and towards a magnitude risk assessment, in which female sex is seen as a risk modifier.

“The Europeans and the Americans are looking at the same data, so we often reach the same conclusions,” Joglar said, although “we sometimes use different wordings.”

Overall, Kotecha expressed the hope that the move “will lead to better implementation of guidelines, at the end of the day.”

“That’s all we can hope for: Patients will be offered a more individualized approach, leading to more appropriate use of treatment in the right patients.”

The newer direct oral anticoagulation is “a much simpler therapy,” he added. “There is very little monitoring, a similar risk of bleeding as aspirin, and yet the ability to largely prevent the high rate of stroke and thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation.”

“So, it’s a big ticket item for our communities and public health, particularly as atrial fibrillation is expected to double in prevalence in the next few decades and evidence is building that it can lead to vascular dementia in the long-term.”

No funding was declared. Kotecha declares relationships with Bayer, Protherics Medicines Development, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Amomed, MyoKardia. Curtis declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Abbott. Joglar declared no relevant relationships. Tedrow declared no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) caused a stir when they recommended in their latest atrial fibrillation (AF) management guideline that gender no longer be included in the decision to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy.

The move aims to level the playing field between men and women and follows a more nuanced understanding of stroke risk in patients with AF, said experts. It also acknowledges the lack of evidence in people receiving cross-sex hormone therapy.

In any case, the guidelines, developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and published by the European Heart Journal on August 30, simply follow 2023’s US recommendations, they added.

 

One Size Does Not Fit All

So, what to the ESC guidelines actually say?

They underline that, if left untreated, the risk for ischemic stroke is increased fivefold in patients with AF, and the “default approach should therefore be to provide oral anticoagulation to all eligible AF patients, except those at low risk for incident stroke or thromboembolism.”

However, the authors note that there is a lack of strong evidence on how to apply the current risk scores to help inform that decision in real-world patients.

Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, Professor of Cardiology at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England, and senior author of the ESC guidelines, said in an interview that “the available scores have a relatively poor ability to accurately predict which patients will have a stroke or thromboembolic event.”

Instead, he said “a much better approach is for healthcare professionals to look at each patient’s individual risk factors, using the risk scores to identify those patients that might not benefit from oral anticoagulant therapy.”

For these guidelines, the authors therefore wanted to “move away from a one-size-fits-all” approach, Kotecha said, and instead ensure that more patients can benefit from the new range of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are easier to take and with much lower chance of side effects or major bleeding.

To achieve this, they separated their clinical recommendations from any particular risk score, and instead focused on the practicalities of implementation.

 

Risk Modifier Vs Risk Factor

To explain their decision the authors highlight that “the most popular risk score” is the CHA2DS2–VASc, which gives a point for female sex, alongside factors such as congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, and a sliding scale of points for increasing age.

Kotecha pointed out the score was developed before the DOACs were available and may not account for how risk factors have changed in recent decades.

The result is that CHA2DS2–VASc gives the same number of points to an individual with heart failure or prior transient ischemic attack as to a woman aged less than 65 years, “but the magnitude of increased risk is not the same,” Usha Beth Tedrow, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

As far back as 2018, it was known that “female sex is a risk modifier, rather than a risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation,” noted Jose Joglar, MD, lead author of the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation said in an interview.

A Danish national registry study involving 239,671 AF patients treated between 1997 and 2015, nearly half of whom were women, showed that, at a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 0, the “risk of stroke between men and women is absolutely the same,” he said.

“It is not until after a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 2 that the curves start to separate,” Joglar, Program Director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, continued, “but by then you have already made the decision to anticoagulate.”

More recently, Kotecha and colleagues conducted a population cohort study of the electronic healthcare records of UK primary care patients treated between 2005 and 2020, and identified 78,852 with AF; more than a third were women.

Their analysis, published on September 1, showed that women had a lower adjusted rate of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or arterial thromboembolism, driven by a reduced mortality rate.

“Removal of gender from clinical risk scoring could simplify the approach to which patients with AF should be offered oral anticoagulation,” Kotecha and colleagues concluded.

Joglar clarified that “women are at increased risk for stroke than men” overall, but by the time that risk “becomes manifest, other risk factors have come into play, and they have already met the criteria for anticoagulation.”

The authors of the latest ESC guideline therefore concluded that the “inclusion of gender complicates clinical practice both for healthcare professionals and patients.” Their solution was to remove the question of gender for decisions over initiating oral anticoagulant therapy in clinical practice altogether.

This includes individuals who identify as transgender or are undergoing sex hormone therapy, as all the experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to know if that affects stroke risk.

Instead, guidelines state that the drugs are “recommended in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 2 or more and should be considered in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 1, following a patient-centered and shared care approach.”

“Dropping the gender part of the risk score is not really a substantial change” from previous ESC or other guidelines, as different points were required in the past to recommend anticoagulants for women and men, Kotecha said, adding that “making the approach easier for clinicians may avoid penalizing women as well as nonbinary and transgender patients.”

Anne B. Curtis, MD, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo in New York, agreed.

Putting aside the question of female sex, she said that there are not a lot of people under the age of 65 years with “absolutely no risk factors,” and so, “if the only reason you would anticoagulate” someone of that age is because they are a woman that “doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

The ESC guidelines are “trying to say, ‘look at the other risk factors, and if anything is there, go ahead and anticoagulate,” Curtis said in an interview.

“It’s actually a very thoughtful decision,” Tedrow said, and not “intended to discount risk in women.” Rather, it’s a statement that acknowledges the problem of recommending anticoagulation therapy in women “for whom it is not appropriate.”

Joglar pointed out that that recommendation, although not characterized in the same way, was in fact included in the 2023 US guidelines.

“We wanted to use a more nuanced approach,” he said, and move away from using CHA2DS2–VASc as the prime determinant of whether to start oral anticoagulation and towards a magnitude risk assessment, in which female sex is seen as a risk modifier.

“The Europeans and the Americans are looking at the same data, so we often reach the same conclusions,” Joglar said, although “we sometimes use different wordings.”

Overall, Kotecha expressed the hope that the move “will lead to better implementation of guidelines, at the end of the day.”

“That’s all we can hope for: Patients will be offered a more individualized approach, leading to more appropriate use of treatment in the right patients.”

The newer direct oral anticoagulation is “a much simpler therapy,” he added. “There is very little monitoring, a similar risk of bleeding as aspirin, and yet the ability to largely prevent the high rate of stroke and thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation.”

“So, it’s a big ticket item for our communities and public health, particularly as atrial fibrillation is expected to double in prevalence in the next few decades and evidence is building that it can lead to vascular dementia in the long-term.”

No funding was declared. Kotecha declares relationships with Bayer, Protherics Medicines Development, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Amomed, MyoKardia. Curtis declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Abbott. Joglar declared no relevant relationships. Tedrow declared no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) caused a stir when they recommended in their latest atrial fibrillation (AF) management guideline that gender no longer be included in the decision to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy.

The move aims to level the playing field between men and women and follows a more nuanced understanding of stroke risk in patients with AF, said experts. It also acknowledges the lack of evidence in people receiving cross-sex hormone therapy.

In any case, the guidelines, developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and published by the European Heart Journal on August 30, simply follow 2023’s US recommendations, they added.

 

One Size Does Not Fit All

So, what to the ESC guidelines actually say?

They underline that, if left untreated, the risk for ischemic stroke is increased fivefold in patients with AF, and the “default approach should therefore be to provide oral anticoagulation to all eligible AF patients, except those at low risk for incident stroke or thromboembolism.”

However, the authors note that there is a lack of strong evidence on how to apply the current risk scores to help inform that decision in real-world patients.

Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, Professor of Cardiology at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England, and senior author of the ESC guidelines, said in an interview that “the available scores have a relatively poor ability to accurately predict which patients will have a stroke or thromboembolic event.”

Instead, he said “a much better approach is for healthcare professionals to look at each patient’s individual risk factors, using the risk scores to identify those patients that might not benefit from oral anticoagulant therapy.”

For these guidelines, the authors therefore wanted to “move away from a one-size-fits-all” approach, Kotecha said, and instead ensure that more patients can benefit from the new range of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are easier to take and with much lower chance of side effects or major bleeding.

To achieve this, they separated their clinical recommendations from any particular risk score, and instead focused on the practicalities of implementation.

 

Risk Modifier Vs Risk Factor

To explain their decision the authors highlight that “the most popular risk score” is the CHA2DS2–VASc, which gives a point for female sex, alongside factors such as congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, and a sliding scale of points for increasing age.

Kotecha pointed out the score was developed before the DOACs were available and may not account for how risk factors have changed in recent decades.

The result is that CHA2DS2–VASc gives the same number of points to an individual with heart failure or prior transient ischemic attack as to a woman aged less than 65 years, “but the magnitude of increased risk is not the same,” Usha Beth Tedrow, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

As far back as 2018, it was known that “female sex is a risk modifier, rather than a risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation,” noted Jose Joglar, MD, lead author of the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation said in an interview.

A Danish national registry study involving 239,671 AF patients treated between 1997 and 2015, nearly half of whom were women, showed that, at a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 0, the “risk of stroke between men and women is absolutely the same,” he said.

“It is not until after a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 2 that the curves start to separate,” Joglar, Program Director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, continued, “but by then you have already made the decision to anticoagulate.”

More recently, Kotecha and colleagues conducted a population cohort study of the electronic healthcare records of UK primary care patients treated between 2005 and 2020, and identified 78,852 with AF; more than a third were women.

Their analysis, published on September 1, showed that women had a lower adjusted rate of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or arterial thromboembolism, driven by a reduced mortality rate.

“Removal of gender from clinical risk scoring could simplify the approach to which patients with AF should be offered oral anticoagulation,” Kotecha and colleagues concluded.

Joglar clarified that “women are at increased risk for stroke than men” overall, but by the time that risk “becomes manifest, other risk factors have come into play, and they have already met the criteria for anticoagulation.”

The authors of the latest ESC guideline therefore concluded that the “inclusion of gender complicates clinical practice both for healthcare professionals and patients.” Their solution was to remove the question of gender for decisions over initiating oral anticoagulant therapy in clinical practice altogether.

This includes individuals who identify as transgender or are undergoing sex hormone therapy, as all the experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to know if that affects stroke risk.

Instead, guidelines state that the drugs are “recommended in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 2 or more and should be considered in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 1, following a patient-centered and shared care approach.”

“Dropping the gender part of the risk score is not really a substantial change” from previous ESC or other guidelines, as different points were required in the past to recommend anticoagulants for women and men, Kotecha said, adding that “making the approach easier for clinicians may avoid penalizing women as well as nonbinary and transgender patients.”

Anne B. Curtis, MD, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo in New York, agreed.

Putting aside the question of female sex, she said that there are not a lot of people under the age of 65 years with “absolutely no risk factors,” and so, “if the only reason you would anticoagulate” someone of that age is because they are a woman that “doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

The ESC guidelines are “trying to say, ‘look at the other risk factors, and if anything is there, go ahead and anticoagulate,” Curtis said in an interview.

“It’s actually a very thoughtful decision,” Tedrow said, and not “intended to discount risk in women.” Rather, it’s a statement that acknowledges the problem of recommending anticoagulation therapy in women “for whom it is not appropriate.”

Joglar pointed out that that recommendation, although not characterized in the same way, was in fact included in the 2023 US guidelines.

“We wanted to use a more nuanced approach,” he said, and move away from using CHA2DS2–VASc as the prime determinant of whether to start oral anticoagulation and towards a magnitude risk assessment, in which female sex is seen as a risk modifier.

“The Europeans and the Americans are looking at the same data, so we often reach the same conclusions,” Joglar said, although “we sometimes use different wordings.”

Overall, Kotecha expressed the hope that the move “will lead to better implementation of guidelines, at the end of the day.”

“That’s all we can hope for: Patients will be offered a more individualized approach, leading to more appropriate use of treatment in the right patients.”

The newer direct oral anticoagulation is “a much simpler therapy,” he added. “There is very little monitoring, a similar risk of bleeding as aspirin, and yet the ability to largely prevent the high rate of stroke and thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation.”

“So, it’s a big ticket item for our communities and public health, particularly as atrial fibrillation is expected to double in prevalence in the next few decades and evidence is building that it can lead to vascular dementia in the long-term.”

No funding was declared. Kotecha declares relationships with Bayer, Protherics Medicines Development, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Amomed, MyoKardia. Curtis declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Abbott. Joglar declared no relevant relationships. Tedrow declared no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.